1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case is to revise "from April 15, 2008 to June 10, 2008," "from the plaintiff to the plaintiff's June 10, 2008" of the third 9 of the first instance judgment as "from the plaintiff's June 10, 208." The plaintiff's new argument is identical to the entry of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition under Paragraph 2 below, and therefore, it is to accept it as it is in

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since monetary transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendants are not based on an investment contract, rather than by a loan for consumption, the Interest Limitation Act shall apply. However, the Plaintiff respectively borrowed KRW 489,80,00 from Defendant B, KRW 35,00,00 from Defendant C, but paid KRW 1,306,000 to Defendant C in excess of the annual maximum interest rate of KRW 30%, and KRW 190,000 to Defendant C in excess of the annual maximum interest rate of KRW 190,000.2) Accordingly, Defendant B is obligated to return KRW 73,242,131 [the maximum interest rate of KRW 1,306,00,000 - KRW 489,80,000,000 - KRW 3005,000 x 309,000,000 per annum from 208.28.208].

B. 1) The Interest Limitation Act applies only to a monetary loan for consumption (see Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act, Supreme Court Decision 77Da271, May 24, 197). As long as an original paid by one party from the other party is not based on a monetary loan for consumption, but is recognized as an investment amount under a business contract, the Interest Limitation Act cannot be applied to the investment return received from the other party. 2) This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is premised on the premise that the monetary transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is based on a monetary loan contract for consumption.