1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 103,049,267 and KRW 101,603,928 among them.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff on April 5, 2016 as interest rate per month, KRW 5% on October 5, 2016, and KRW 10 million on July 18, 2016, with the maturity of payment fixed on September 18, 2016 as interest rate per month, and the maturity of payment as of September 18, 2016.

B. On August 31, 2016, Defendant B remitted KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff’s deposit account on July 31, 2016, KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff’s Dong E’s deposit account, KRW 5 million on May 6, 2016, KRW 5 million to the F’s deposit account, KRW 5 million on May 9, 2016, KRW 500,000 on June 2, 2016, KRW 180,000 on June 3, 2016, KRW 130,00 won on June 9, 2016, KRW 500,000 on April 6, 201, KRW 600 on April 7, 2016, KRW 500,000 on May 5, 2015, respectively (hereinafter referred to as the “F”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Eul evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 3, and 4

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff only paid 17 million won in total over four occasions interest rates of each of the above loans (hereinafter “the instant loans”) (the Defendant C transferred to Plaintiff and E, KRW 2 million, KRW 7 million, and KRW 10 million remitted to E by F), and did not pay the remainder interest and principal. The Plaintiff sought payment of the amount calculated by the ratio of 25% per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, from July 19, 2016 to the day of full payment.

As to this, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff paid the plaintiff total of KRW 30,100,00,000, including the above KRW 17,000,00, which is recognized by the plaintiff, only the remainder is liable

B. The first written evidence No. 1 is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant B paid the remainder of KRW 13.1 million to the Plaintiff in addition to the Plaintiff’s KRW 17 million recognized by Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

Among the following contractual interests concerning monetary lending and lending, the part exceeding the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act is null and void, and the interest exceeding the highest interest rate.