1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 18,254,240 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 13, 2014 to March 30, 2015; and (b) March 31, 2015.

From May 2, 2012 to March 26, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the interest rate exceeding the Interest Limitation Act while entering into a contract for lending money to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to refund money exceeding the interest rate of 30% per annum, which is the highest interest rate prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act, to the Defendant on the ground of repayment. If the Plaintiff is appropriated in the order of expenses, interest, and principal, which are the highest interest rate prescribed by the said Interest Limitation Act, and if they are repaid, the above principal and interest on the loan shall be repaid in full, and 18,254,240 won (=18,114,676 won, which began from the loan from the date of May 2, 2012 to the date of lending from the date of November 13, 2013, the Defendant did not dispute the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s intent to refund money exceeding the interest rate of 139,564 won per annum from May 13, 2014 to the date of appeal No. 201.

In regard to this, the defendant argued that the plaintiff's actions by the self-determination right (the right to self-determination or general freedom of action derived from the right to pursue happiness which Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea respects the decision and choice of the person who is ideal and responsible, but the responsibility for the decision shall be borne by him) does not constitute unjust enrichment. However, since the maximum interest rate limitation of the Interest Limitation Act is a mandatory provision, the above argument itself cannot be accepted.

Furthermore, the defendant is a separate monetary loan relationship after the monetary loan of this case.