However, as long as there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement on the repayment period as to the above loan, the Plaintiff’s claim on the loan against the Defendant is a loan for consumption with no stipulation at the time of repayment, and shall be liable for delay from the date on which a considerable period of time has elapsed after demanding the return (Article 603(2) of the Civil Act). Since it is apparent in the record that the original payment order based on the application for the payment order was served on the Defendant on January 30, 2014, which includes the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to seek repayment of the above loan against the Defendant, the original payment order based on the application for the payment order was served on the Defendant, it is determined that the Defendant’s repayment period has arrived on February 28, 2014 after the considerable period of time has elapsed (i.e., no claim for interest and delay damages before February 28, 2014). Therefore, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to repay the loan from March 1, 2014 to the next day of this case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. First, the defendant's defense that the plaintiff paid in kind to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,000,000 to the ice cream, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. Next, the defendant, on behalf of the plaintiff, has a claim equivalent to 19,127,709 won (=637,590,314 x fee rate of 3%) by acting on behalf of the plaintiff for the import of goods equivalent to 637,590,314 won, which is equivalent to the plaintiff's 19,127,709 won (=637,590,314

However, it was drawn up between the plaintiff and the defendant.