1. As to KRW 470,00,000 and KRW 405,081,284 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall be from June 11, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

(c) recognize.

In other words, the Plaintiff agreed to borrow KRW 50 million from D to bear interest, and it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, etc. agreed to pay the amount equivalent to the interest that the Plaintiff bears to D to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, it can be recognized that there was an agreement on interest regarding the instant loan.

3) Furthermore, from among the instant reimbursement amount, the Defendant, etc. paid KRW 149,00,000 to the Plaintiff for eight months. The average amount paid KRW 18,625,000 to the Plaintiff. This average amount is the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 1227, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter “former Interest Limitation Act”).

) Subparagraph 2(1) of Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act and Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25476, Jun. 11, 2014) exceed 11,750,00 won (=47 million won +0.0.3* (1/12) *) of monthly interest calculated at 30% per annum, which is the highest interest rate under Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act. Therefore, there was an agreement to pay interest exceeding 30% per annum with respect to the instant loan. (4) Since the interest agreement on the instant loan is null and void, the interest agreement on the instant loan is valid only within the limit of 30% per annum.

B. As of January 27, 2015, when the repayment of the instant loan was made in the order of interest and principal on the instant loan, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate to repay the said loan in the order of the principal, the principal amount of which is KRW 405,081,284 as of January 27, 2015, and interest KRW 66,950,308 (the above loan certificate is premised on the premise that the entire amount of the instant loan was appropriated to the parties with an agreement exceeding the limit under the Interest Limitation Act, and this premise is invalid as it is in violation of the Interest Limitation Act, and thus, the agreement on the loan certificate is invalid to the extent that it violates the Interest Limitation Act).