1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff lent KRW 70 million to the Defendant on September 16, 2014

(A) Evidence No. 1). (b)

On December 16, 2014, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing that the Plaintiff would pay the principal amount of KRW 60 million up to December 29, 2014, with respect to the said KRW 70 million loan, until December 29, 2014, to the Plaintiff by December 26, 2015.

(A) Evidence No. 2) (c)

The Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff totaling KRW 90,190,000 by May 12, 2015.

(C) ADDD 1, 2016. (See Plaintiff’s preparatory brief dated April 14, 2016)

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant extended KRW 70 million from the plaintiff, but still did not pay KRW 22 million, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for payment is sought.

3. The highest interest rate recognized by the Act on the Restriction of Interest on Contract for Loan and Lending of Money is 25% per annum, and the interest exceeding this highest interest rate is null and void.

(Interest Limitation Act (Article 2(1) and (3) of the Interest Limitation Act, and Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act on the highest interest rate under the foregoing provision). The Plaintiff was a person who received reimbursement from the Defendant for the total amount of KRW 90,190,00,000, which is an amount exceeding one year from the date of borrowing, in relation to the Plaintiff’s loan claim of KRW 70,000,000. (The principal amount = KRW 17,500,000 (=70,000 x 0.25%).

The interest agreement that exceeds the interest rate of 25% per annum pursuant to the Interest Limitation Act is null and void (i.e., the agreement that goes against the intent of the mandatory provision is null and void even if the Defendant prepared a loan certificate to the Plaintiff on December 16, 2014, and there is no difference in its conclusion). Ultimately, the Defendant repaid the Plaintiff all principal and interest of the loan claim.

Therefore, without examining the remainder, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

4. Conclusion.