1. The Defendant’s KRW 122,054,794 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 25% per annum from July 29, 2017 to February 7, 2018.

1. Around April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff leased KRW 350,00,000 to the Defendant for a period of three months, interest of KRW 35,000 (which shall be interest for three months), and the Defendant paid KRW 250,00,000 to the Plaintiff around June 14, 2017 does not conflict between the parties.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, a monetary loan agreement is null and void to the extent that it exceeds the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act. The benefit of time may be waived, but the other party's profit shall not be undermined, and the amount repaid by the defendant in this case where there is no assertion as to the agreement on appropriation of performance or the fact that there was an appropriation of payment by the plaintiff and the defendant should be appropriated in accordance with the legal principles of appropriation of performance. It is clear that the amount repaid by the defendant should be appropriated in accordance with the legal principles of appropriation of performance. The amount repaid by the defendant is KRW 250,00,000,000 paid by the defendant from April 28, 2017 to July 28, 2017, with interest rate of KRW 22,054,794 per annum 227,945,206, and the remaining amount shall be appropriated in principal and the principal shall remain in excess of KRW 122,054,79

(A) The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's assertion was not received as a return to allow the defendant to proceed with re-building, but as a result, it was not received as a return for the defendant to allow it to proceed with re-building. However, in light of Article 4 of the Interest Limitation Act, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit in itself.

In regard to this, the defendant, including the defendant, is responsible for the partnership's liabilities incurred in the course of a reconstruction project. Thus, the defendant's argument that the claim cannot be complied with is insufficient to recognize it only by the evidence of the defendant's submission, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(A) According to the statement of evidence Nos. 4, the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff(s).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, KRW 122,054,794, as well as damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from July 29, 2017 to February 7, 2018, and KRW 24% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion.