1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant's explanation against the plaintiff was drawn up in 2008.

1. The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance is as follows: (a) it stated the reasoning of the first instance judgment in addition to the use of the first instance court Nos. 4, 21, 5, and 2 as follows; and (b) thus, it quoted it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Violation of the Interest Limitation Act shall be determined ex officio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da103738, Mar. 25, 2010); and the first instance judgment recognized the obligation to pay interest exceeding the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act; thus, this part is judged again). 2. If the Plaintiff’s payment of the money deposited to the Defendant is made in the court as follows: (a) the remainder of the Plaintiff’s loans to the Defendant shall be KRW 9,500,421, which is the date following the last repayment date; and (b) the maximum interest rate under Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act from October 29, 2008 to the date following the last repayment date (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28413, Nov. 7, 2017); and (c) the annual interest rate shall be 30% from the following day to July 14, 2014; and (d) the annual interest rate shall be 25% to the date immediately preceding 2018.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no ground. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the judgment of the court of first instance is modified and it is so decided as per Disposition.