1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff (Law Firm C) No. 1338, Nov. 2, 2016, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around November 2008, the Defendant lent KRW 20 million to E Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s representative director D substantially operated, ② KRW 15 million to E Co., Ltd. on January 1, 2012, ③ KRW 50 million to D on May 20, 2013.

B. On May 25, 2013, D drafted a written loan agreement to the Defendant stating that the sum of KRW 85 million in total (hereinafter “instant loan”) and KRW 100 million in total, including KRW 100,000,000 (hereinafter “instant compensation”) as compensation for each of the above loans shall be KRW 185,00,000 (Evidence A; hereinafter “the instant loan agreement”).

C. On November 2, 2016, D and the Defendant drafted a written confirmation (Evidence No. 6) stating that “The unpaid amount shall be calculated as KRW 70 million out of the instant loan and compensation” (Evidence No. 6).

On November 2, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 70 million to the Defendant in installments for a period of 24 months from December 2, 2016 to November 2018, 2018. The Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to pay KRW 70 million under the above certification document by preparing and delivering a notarial deed of debt repayment (Quasi-Loan for Consumption) agreement (hereinafter “Quasi-Loan for Consumption”) to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that KRW 100 million falls under the interest on the instant loan regardless of its name, and thus, the part exceeding the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act is invalid.

The Plaintiff and D repaid total of KRW 152,152,09 to the Defendant, and there is no remaining loan upon satisfaction of the obligation according to the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case shall be dismissed.

B. According to the above facts, in light of the nature of the instant compensation and the background leading up to the payment, etc., it is reasonable to deem the interest on the instant loan as an objection. The former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014) is amended.