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.

1. According to the evidence No. 1 of the basic facts, the Plaintiff received the money indicated in the “amount” column of the attached table of satisfaction of obligation (hereinafter “the pertinent statement”) from the Defendant on the date indicated in the “transaction Date” column, and the money indicated in the “payment” column of the statement is recognized to have been remitted to the Defendant on the date indicated in the “Transaction Date” column.

2. The nature of the entry “amount” in the statement that the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff

A. The Plaintiff claimed that the amount transferred from the Defendant, as indicated in the statement on the “amount of money” is a loan, and thereafter, the Plaintiff sought to return the said amount of money to the Defendant as unjust enrichment because the Plaintiff paid interest exceeding the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act to the Defendant, and that the said amount would have been appropriated for the principal and interest of the said loan. As such, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff transferred the money of investment to the Plaintiff several times upon the Plaintiff’s request for lending of investment funds to be used for credit business, leasing business, etc., and thus, the “amount of money” indicated in the statement on the “amount of money” does not apply to the Interest Limitation

B. In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s failure to prepare a disposal document stating the nature of the money, maturity of payment, method of repayment, etc. when remitting the money indicated in the statement to the Plaintiff, does not conflict between the parties. However, in the case of a monetary loan for use of money which is made by means of remitting between private individuals through a financial institution, it is not rare in cases where a disposal document, such as a certificate of borrowing, is not prepared because it is proved by confirming the details of remittance. In addition, in light of the following circumstances, the amount indicated in the statement in the statement is loaned by the Plaintiff from the Defendant.