The defendant on 316.

(However, “creditor” shall be deemed “Plaintiff” and “debtor” shall be deemed “Defendant”). 2. Judgment by public notice of applicable provisions of law (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. Part of rejection and dismissal.

A. Although the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 176,300 to the Defendant regarding the claim for the instant payment order, it is a claim for the amount spent as litigation costs, which can be repaid through the procedure for determining the amount of litigation costs after the judgment became final and conclusive, there is no benefit to seek a separate lawsuit.

(Supreme Court Decision 9Da68577 delivered on May 12, 2000). B

The Plaintiff’s dismissal portion claimed damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case. However, since the statutory interest rate under the same Act was amended from June 1, 2019, the statutory interest rate under the same Act was changed to 12% per annum, the Plaintiff recognized damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the day after the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, and the exceeding part is not acceptable.

4. In conclusion, the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking the payment of the expenses for demand procedure is unlawful and dismissed. The plaintiff's claim for reimbursement is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiff's remaining claim for reimbursement is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.