1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The parties' assertion

A. According to the loan certificate of this case, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 25,00,000 to the Plaintiff up to December 30, 2016, and paid interest of KRW 34.9% per annum from November 27, 2012 to August 18, 2016, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 28,062,00 in total, as stated in the date of repayment and the amount of repayment in the separate sheet from November 27, 2012 to August 18, 2016.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the interest of KRW 25,00,000 and interest of KRW 4,447,376 as of August 18, 2016 and interest of KRW 29,447,376 and interest of KRW 25,00,00 and interest of KRW 25.9% per annum from August 19, 2016 to the date of full payment.

B. The Defendant paid interest of KRW 128,00 per month on November 2012, and borrowed KRW 22,00,000 from the Plaintiff, and upon the Plaintiff’s request to increase interest, the Defendant merely paid interest of KRW 154,00 per month from September 23, 2013, and there was no agreement to pay interest of KRW 10% per annum or 34.9% per annum as indicated in the instant notarial deed or the instant notarial deed.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court of relevant legal principles must recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent as stated in the statement, unless there is any counter-proof that the contents are clear and acceptable to deny the authenticity of the disposal document. In general, the fact that part of the document is in a blank state at the time of delivery of the document and that it was supplemented after the fact that there was a blank blank state at the time of delivery of the document.

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 2014 Decided August 22, 2013