A. On March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 17,000,000 to the Defendant without having agreed on the due date and interest, and, on April 15, 2014, leased KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant for the due date without having agreed on the interest.

B. The Defendant paid KRW 6,770,000 to the Plaintiff, and agreed with the Plaintiff to pay the said amount to the principal.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant's claim for damages for delay under the Promotion Act from the date following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order to the plaintiff (=27,000,000 won - 6,770,000 won) and the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay from the date following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order to the date of the original copy of the instant payment order as sought by the plaintiff is reasonable to dispute over the existence and scope of the instant performance order from October 14, 2016. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay under the Promotion Act from the date following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order to the date of the decision cannot be accepted.

Until August 24, 2017, which is the date of this decision, the Civil Act is obligated to pay 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no ground. It is so decided as per Disposition in consideration of the fact that the plaintiff reduced the purport of the claim according to the defendant's defense of performance.