1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 24,118,002 as well as the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 12, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim is the cause of the instant claim, and that the Plaintiff loaned money to the Defendant, and that the amount of the principal not paid up to the present date is KRW 49,950,000, and thus, the Plaintiff claims for the payment of damages for delay calculated at a rate of 15% per annum from the day following the date of service of the original copy

2. Therefore, the following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized in full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 10 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul evidence 10, and there is no counter-proof.

From April 25, 2011 to March 19, 2015, the Plaintiff loaned to the Defendant at least 33.33% per annum on 32 occasions as shown in the attached loan list.

B. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff each amount indicated in the “payment” column on each day indicated in the “the date of repayment” column of the attached table of appropriation for performance.

3. Determination

A. The interest on a contract in excess of the maximum interest rate prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act (30% per annum from June 30, 2007 to July 14, 2014; 25% per annum from the following day) is null and void. If the debtor voluntarily pays the interest exceeding the maximum interest rate, the amount equivalent to the excess interest paid shall be appropriated for the principal (Article 2 of the Interest Limitation Act), and the remaining amount being appropriated for the principal shall be the creditor’s acquisition without any legal cause and shall be the debtor’s obligation to return to the debtor for unjust enrichment.

The obligation to return unjust enrichment is an obligation with no fixed term of time, and there is no delay damages as it does not reach the due date until the claimant claims the return.

B. In addition to the recognition of the Defendant’s reimbursement under the foregoing legal doctrine, “the Plaintiff alleged by the Defendant” brought the goods at the Defendant’s work convenience store or in cash.