2. Some of the dismissed parts of the Plaintiff claimed payment of delay damages from October 1, 2008 for the above loan amounting to KRW 60,000,000, but there is no evidence to deem that the repayment period has been fixed under a monetary loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Therefore, the above loan obligation is a debt with no fixed time limit, and thus the Defendant is liable for delay from the time of receiving a claim for performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Da3253, Nov. 8, 198). Since there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff requested payment of the above loan obligation against the Defendant before the instant lawsuit was filed, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff is liable for delay from December 22, 2017, on the record that the date when the copy of the complaint stating the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to claim payment of the above loan obligation against the Defendant was delivered to the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay is justified only within the scope of the above recognition.

3. Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act: