1. The Defendant paid KRW 5,995,00 to the Plaintiff KRW 5% from June 27, 2015 to September 3, 2015.

1. From August 20, 2013 to July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff borrowed money several times from the Defendant and repaid the money. If the Plaintiff’s repayment of the money repaid by the Plaintiff is made in the order of the principal calculated by applying the rate of 30% per annum, which is the limitation under the Interest Limitation Act, to the interest and the principal, there is no dispute between the parties that remaining KRW 5,95,229 even after all appropriation of the principal and interest. Thus, Articles 2(1), (3) and (4) and 3 of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 1227, Jan. 14, 2014) and “the maximum interest rate under Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act” are 30% per annum, and the amount exceeding the above maximum interest rate under the contract is invalid, and the Defendant is not obliged to return the money voluntarily paid to the Plaintiff exceeding the above maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201320Da193194.

2. The defendant's defense and judgment

A. As to the Defendant’s defense of set-off, the Defendant was indicted on charges of impairing the Defendant’s honor on or around April 28, 2014, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2 million by Suwon District Court 2015Da769 on June 11, 2015, and accordingly, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for damages claim (U.S. District Court 2015Kadan7745) due to a civil tort against the Plaintiff and received a judgment on August 13, 2015, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 3 million to the Defendant and its delay damages.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the said claim for return of unjust enrichment of this case against the Defendant was set off with the claim for return of unjust enrichment of this case, which the Plaintiff had against the Defendant.

B. We examine the judgment, and Article 496 of the Civil Code.