(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. The Plaintiff partly dismissed the part of the Plaintiff seek payment of the agreed interest and delay damages calculated by the rate of 24% per annum from September 1, 2005, which was 1 month after the date of loan to the Defendants.

In this regard, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had determined interest and payment period while lending the above money to the Defendants.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant loan is a loan for consumption with no agreement on the time of repayment, and the due date shall arrive only after the lapse of the period specified by Article 603(2) of the Civil Act after demanding the return of the loan.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the return of the loan prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the maturity period has arrived around June 23, 2015, which was the date when the copy of the instant complaint stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to request the performance was served on the Defendants.

Therefore, the Plaintiff can seek damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 24, 2015, which is the day following the sentencing date of this judgment, from June 24, 2015 to the Defendants. Therefore, the part claiming damages for delay prior to such determination is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.