A. Although there is no dispute between the parties to the facts of recognition, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence No. 2 through No. 5, Plaintiff B lent KRW 95 million to the Defendant on February 18, 2013 without fixing the period for repayment, Plaintiff A lent KRW 40 million to the Defendant on February 22, 2013, KRW 220 million, and KRW 40 million on March 19, 2013, and KRW 40 million on March 19, 2013, and a copy of the complaint of this case, which the Plaintiffs sought repayment of each of the above loans, was delivered to the Defendant on April 3, 2017.

B. Determination is based on the following facts: (a) if there is no agreement on the time of return under a loan for consumption, the lending person shall give a peremptory notice for return within a reasonable period of time pursuant to Article 603(2) of the Civil Act; (b) however, there is no provision on the method of peremptory notice, and thus a written complaint may be served by delivery of the complaint (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 63Da131, May 9, 1963). Under the preceding paragraph, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from April 4, 2017 to the date following the day on which the copy of the complaint of this case, which contains a peremptory notice of return of each of the above loans, to the Plaintiff, to the Defendant.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to this, the defendant first borrowed the claimed money from the plaintiffs, but it was true that D, the defendant, at his own discretion, completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of Plaintiff A's husband, and the ownership of the loan of this case is transferred until it is transferred.