1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 199,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 29, 2012 to May 18, 2015; and (b) May 2015 for the Plaintiff.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 6 (including branch numbers), the plaintiff borrowed each amount indicated in the "amount borrowed" column in the annexed statement of appropriation from the defendant from August 25, 2009 to July 28, 2012 (hereinafter "the borrowed money in this case"), and the defendant paid the above borrowed money and its interest to the defendant each amount indicated in the "amount of repayment" column in the above table.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. From June 30, 2007, when the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 10925, Jul. 25, 2011; hereinafter “former Interest Limitation Act”) was enacted, the maximum interest rate under the former Interest Limitation Act and Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 10925, Jul. 15, 2014; hereinafter “former Interest Limitation Act”) is 30% per annum on the contractual interest rate under the former Interest Limitation Act from July 15, 2014, and the exceeding portion is null and void. If the obligor voluntarily pays interest exceeding the above maximum interest rate, the amount equivalent to the interest paid in excess shall be appropriated for the original, and if the original is extinguished, a claim for the return thereof may be filed.

In light of the language and text of the above provision as a mandatory provision of the former Interest Limitation Act, and the interest restriction Act prior to the repeal of January 13, 1998 did not have such provision, but the interest restriction Act enacted again on March 29, 2007 explicitly provides for the claim for return. However, even if the Plaintiff paid interest exceeding the maximum interest rate to the Defendant at will, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff may claim for return of the excess amount when the principal is appropriated for the principal and the principal is extinguished (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da81203, Feb. 14, 2013).