A. In light of the written evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 8-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 4-1, 8-2 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness D, it is recognized that the Plaintiff lent KRW 80,000,000 in total, 40,000 on July 19, 2010 and August 24, 2010 without setting the due date to the Defendant B.

According to the above facts, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 80,00,000 and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act until February 21, 2017, which is the date of this judgment, where it is deemed reasonable for Defendant B to dispute as to the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation from June 1, 2016, after the day when the complaint of this case was served on Defendant B, which was the day after the day when the complaint of this case was served on Defendant B, to the day when it was repaid.

(A) The Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of damages for delay from August 25, 2010, the date following the last lease date, but the Defendant B’s loan obligation against the Plaintiff is an obligation for which the maturity date is not specified, and the damages for delay should be calculated from the day following the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected).

Defendant B’s assertion is acknowledged that Defendant B received KRW 80,000,000 from the Plaintiff as above, but asserts that it was not lent from the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff’s donation to Defendant B.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence submitted, that is, witness D testified that Defendant B lent money to the Plaintiff at the same place in this court by having Defendant B lent money to the Plaintiff, and that the amount of KRW 80,000,000 that Defendant B received from the Plaintiff is too large, as alleged by Defendant B, the Plaintiff is a witness.