1. The Defendant’s KRW 38,424,657 and KRW 30,00,000 among the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from May 24, 2017 to March 2, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 13, 2017, the Plaintiff lent KRW 300 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant on the same day, stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay KRW 340 million to the Plaintiff by May 23, 2017” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant loan certificate”).

B. From May 2, 2017 to November 14, 2017, the Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff the principal amounting to KRW 270 million. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of A evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion stated that the loan certificate of this case is KRW 40 million, but the actual interest agreed with the Defendant is KRW 50 million.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 80 million won with 5% interest per annum from May 24, 2017 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

B. According to the judgment of the court below and the provision on the maximum interest rate under Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act and Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act at the time of the above lending and borrowing of money between the defendant, the maximum interest rate under a contract for a lending and borrowing of money is 25% per annum,

According to the foregoing legal doctrine, 25% interest rate of 30 million won per annum from April 13, 2017 to May 23, 2017 is 8,424,675 won (i.e., KRW 300 million x KRW 25% x 41/365 days x less than KRW 41/365). Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from May 24, 2017 to May 23, 2017, and 30,000 won of the principal amount (i.e., KRW 30,000,000 interest per annum 8,424,675 won), as the Plaintiff seeks, within the limit of 25% per annum from May 24, 2017 to the delivery date of a copy of complaint, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on this portion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.