(However, “creditor” and “debtor” are deemed to be “Defendant”; 2. Judgment without pleading (Article 208(3)1 and Article 257 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. The Plaintiff partially dismissed the part of the appeal is seeking payment of the Defendant for delay damages from October 21, 2013 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which was the lending date, to the Defendant, but there is no legal ground to deem that the Defendant is immediately liable for delay from the lending date.

In the case of a loan for consumption with no agreement on the time of repayment, the lender shall demand the return of the loan with a reasonable period fixed pursuant to Article 603(2) of the Civil Act, and the due date shall expire only after a considerable period has elapsed from the peremptory notice for the performance of the loan. As such, there is no assertion as to the time of repayment of the loan, and the fact that the duplicate of the complaint of this case stating the declaration of intent to claim the loan was served on the Defendant on July 22, 2015 is apparent in the record, so the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 23

In addition, as the provisions on statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings were promulgated on September 25, 2015 and enforced from October 1, 2015, only 20% per annum from July 23, 2015 to September 30, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, shall not be accepted.