1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, both the Plaintiff and the joint Plaintiff B filed a claim against the Defendants and the co-defendants of the first instance court for the return of unjust enrichment, such as the entries in the purport of the claim. The court of first instance dismissed all of the Plaintiff’s joint Defendant I and H’s claims against the Defendants and the co-defendants of the first instance court. The remainder was dismissed, and all of the claims against the Defendants and the co-defendants of the first instance court were dismissed. The claims against Defendant D and the co-defendant E and F of the first instance court were dismissed.

Accordingly, the Defendants appealed against the judgment of the first instance court against the Plaintiff, as stated in the purport of appeal. Therefore, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the Plaintiff’s appeal filed by the Defendants among the judgment of the first instance court.

2. The reasons for the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: "In addition, in the case of the second loan of this case, the defendants only lent the name of the creditor to the creditor, and the actual creditor was co-defendant H of the court of first instance and the plaintiff company was well aware of this. Of the 333 million won amount paid from the plaintiff company, 30 million won out of the 3333 million won amount paid from the company of this case, the defendants are required to provide consultation in order to enable the defendants to pay their obligations and taxes, etc. through the second loan of this case, and the remaining 3 million won amount was paid as interest.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the actual creditor of the second loan of this case is H and the defendants are lending only to the creditor. Under Article 4 of the Interest Limitation Act, the creditor's receipt in relation to the lending and borrowing of money regardless of the name such as deposit, discount, fees, mutual-aid funds, substitute payment and other titles shall be regarded as interest. The purport of the above provision is to collect money from the debtor under the pretext of discount, introduction fees, etc. and to escape the law.