대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. If there is no dispute between the parties to the claim regarding KRW 2,00,000 in the loan balance, or if the purport of the entire pleadings is shown in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 written, it is recognized that the Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the head of the attorney-at-law office who requested and became aware of the case of his complaint on August 17, 201 without due date or interest agreement, and that the Plaintiff returned KRW 8,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff on October 22, 2015, when the Defendant who was accused of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, under the investigation by the Plaintiff on the charge of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, was the loan borrowed and promised to return it.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the balance of the loan amounting to KRW 2,000,000 and the damages for delay from October 23, 2015, which is the day following the date of repayment.
2. In addition to claims on interest or delay damages, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 10,000,00 on August 17, 201 and refunded KRW 8,000,000 on October 22, 2015. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to pay interest or delay damages up to the period (=10,000,000 per annum x 5% per annum x 1,527/365).
However, the absence of the term of repayment and interest agreement with respect to the instant loan is identical as seen earlier [it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement on the term of payment or interest on the instant loan merely with the statement of the reasons for non-prosecution (Evidence A1) stating the Plaintiff’s statement that he/she had paid within one month or the statement of transaction (Evidence A3) remitting KRW 300,000 on one occasion by the Defendant], and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had caused delay in the performance of the Defendant by demanding the payment of the instant loan before October 22, 2015, which was promised by the Defendant to return from the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking the payment of interest or delay damages incurred prior to October 22, 2015, is without merit.
2. The decision of the court of first instance is justified with the conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.