1. Compulsory execution based on the payment order for the defendant's loan claim against the plaintiff of this court 2008 tea120 is 668.

1. In full view of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 7, and the whole purport of the pleading, the following facts are acknowledged. A.

On March 29, 2007, the defendant agreed to lend 5 million won to the plaintiff and the non-party C at the interest rate of 60% per annum and on June 28, 2007, respectively, and delivered 4 million won after deducting one million won as a fee, including the prior interest.

The defendant filed a claim with the plaintiff and the above Eul as the other party, that the plaintiff and the above C jointly and severally pay 5 million won and 49% interest per annum from November 29, 2007 to the date of complete payment. This court issued a payment order and served the payment order on February 19, 2008.

The defendant argued that the medical expenses of the plaintiff and the above C were required in the cause of the claim for the above payment order.

Plaintiff

In light of the above facts, the above C was repaid as stated in the date of repayment and the column for the amount of repayment in the separate sheet. 2. According to the above facts, although the Defendant decided to lend 5 million won to the Plaintiff, the lending period is the short-term of 3 months, and the agreed interest rate is 60% per annum, the amount deducted under the name of the commission, etc. shall be 1 million won up to 1/5 of the principal amount, and it is shown that the Plaintiff and C was faced with the circumstances where it is difficult to prepare the hospital expenses for the Plaintiff and C, it shall not be deemed that the above deduction of the fee is effective as an unfair legal act. Thus, it is reasonable to deem the loan as 4 million won, and there is no evidence that the Defendant is not a credit service provider, and if the repayment agreement is appropriated for interest and principal in accordance with the interest rate and the limitation rate under the Interest Limitation Act, it appears that the principal amount in the last reduction column and the balance column of the principal in the separate sheet remains.