The judgment below

Among them, the part against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the part against the Appointed C shall be reversed, and this part shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the loan, repayment, and agreed rate

A. The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined as follows with respect to the amount and the agreed rate of the money borrowed or repaid by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Appointed C (hereinafter “Appointed”) to the Defendant.

In other words, the principal of the debt that the Plaintiff borrowed from the Defendant on August 8, 2013 is KRW 50 million.

In the process of borrowing KRW 4,5150,000 from March 27, 2014 to March 24, 2015, the Plaintiff and the designated parties borrowed 4,5150,000 won in total from the Defendant, such as the amount of the claim stated in the separate sheet of calculation of the amount appropriated in the attached sheet as indicated in the lower judgment. Unless there is a separate written agreement, the Plaintiff and the designated parties agreed to pay interest at 30% per annum for the borrowed money and at 25% per annum for the subsequent borrowed money.

On October 1, 2013, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff paid KRW 4 million to the Defendant on the other hand, while the Plaintiff and the designated person repaid total of KRW 8482,00,00 to the Defendant on March 19, 2014 through May 13, 2015, such as the written repayment in the above calculation sheet.

B. The ground of appeal on this part is nothing more than an error of the selection of evidence or fact-finding, which belongs to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and thus cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of disposal documents and the application of the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, or omitting judgment, etc.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the egnetism

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the following facts are revealed.

The lower court on January 201, 2014.