1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On November 16, 2004, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 13,000,000 to the Defendant at a rate of 66% per annum, and drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement for consumption.

On December 11, 2004, the Plaintiff leased KRW 5 million to the Defendant at a rate of 60% per annum on December 11, 2004, and received a cash custody certificate from the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 5 million on October 27, 2005, and KRW 6.3 million on October 28, 2005, and KRW 13 million on a total, KRW 1.3 million on the same month.

At the time of repayment, there was no separate agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to whether the respective repayment would be appropriated for the repayment of any obligation.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff's assertion as to the ground for claim as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 11, and the ground for claim as a whole of the pleadings is 10 million won out of the amount of 11.3 million won which the plaintiff received from the defendant, which occurred by the date of repayment

(a) and (b)

The interest on each of the loan claims mentioned in paragraph (1) and damages for delay are appropriated for the repayment of the remainder of 2.3 million won (=1.3 million won - 9 million won) and 5.28,275 won out of the remainder of 2.3 million won (=1.3 million won) was appropriated for the principal of the loan of this case upon the Plaintiff’s designation. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the remainder of

Judgment

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that there was an appropriation agreement as alleged by the plaintiff. However, according to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, from October 29, 2005 to the date of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff.

The defendant's decision on the defendant's defense of illegal consideration for illegal consideration has been made in favor of the plaintiff in order to allow the plaintiff to leap with the defendant, which is contrary to good morals and social order.