A. The facts that the Plaintiff determined the cause of the claim from March 1, 2004 to December 2008 at the rate of 1.112 billion won per annum, without fixing the due date for repayment, set at 13% from March 1, 2004, and lent a total of KRW 1.112 million to the Defendant do not conflict among the parties. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received reimbursement from the Defendant as principal amounting to KRW 1,083,323,020 from the Defendant himself/herself. Thus, barring any special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the leased principal amount of KRW 28,876,980 ( KRW 1,112,20,000 - KRW 1,083,323,020) and the agreed interest thereon.

B. As to the Defendant’s defense, the Defendant asserts that part of the interest claim out of the above loan claim has expired by prescription, the Plaintiff’s loan claim is a claim with no fixed maturity, and the Plaintiff’s loan claim is a claim with no fixed maturity, and its due date became due by delivery to the Defendant of a copy of the instant complaint containing the intent of peremptory notice until March 27, 2017.

However, since the above interest claim is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription of three years under Article 163 of the Civil Act, the part of the interest claim accrued before March 17, 2014, which was the third anniversary of the delivery from March 17, 2017 received by this court, shall be deemed to have expired after the completion of extinctive prescription, and the defendant's objection to the extinctive prescription shall be justified within the scope of the above recognition.

C. Accordingly, according to the doctrine of lawsuit, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest and delay damages at the rate of 13% per annum as claimed by the Plaintiff from March 17, 2014 to the date of full payment.

2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.