1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. After entering into an agreement with C to receive interest at a rate of 20% or 25% at intervals of 35 days or 40 days from C, the Defendant borrowed 1,02,70,000 won in total from April 16, 2007 to May 26, 2008 as stated in the “loan” column of the attached sheet, and received 1,792,70,000 won in total from May 25, 2007 to May 26, 2008 from C as stated in the “Amount of Repayment” column of the attached sheet.

B. The Plaintiff’s claim against C was prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with C, stating that “The Plaintiff loaned KRW 297,800,000 to C on June 30, 2008, and C repaid the remainder on December 24, 2009, while settling the previous transaction with C from around June 17, 2007, as a notary public on February 4, 2009 (No. 165).” On February 15, 2009, C drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the content that “The Plaintiff repaid the remainder on December 24, 2009.”

(hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff’s claim based on the above notarial deed”), . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1, 3, and 4, and Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the cause of the claim was that the Defendant lent C a total of KRW 1,022,70,000 from April 16, 2007 to May 27, 2008, and C received a total of KRW 1,792,70,000 from May 25, 2007 to May 21, 2008, exceeding the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act (30% per annum) as the principal and interest of C from May 25, 2007 to May 21, 2008. The amount exceeding the above restricted interest rate should be appropriated for repayment of the leased principal pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Interest Limitation Act, and the balance shall be returned to C with unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to return the remainder remaining after appropriating the loan principal and interest to C.

Therefore, the Defendant, who subrogated to insolvent C, should return to the Plaintiff KRW 297,80,000 equivalent to the Plaintiff’s preserved claim amount among the unlawful gains.

(b).