In light of the facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including additional serial numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff lent 80,000 won to the defendant over June 29, 2005 to August 8, 2005 for the purpose of purchasing the principal amount of 7 parcels, etc. including 80,000,000 won from the defendant, the plaintiff applied for a payment order of 40,000,000 won on June 2, 2006 to the defendant for the interest payment of 15,00,000,000 won on May 14, 2010, and the above money was repaid to repay the principal amount of each of the above loans, and the plaintiff applied for the payment order of 20,000 won to the defendant at the rate of 14,000,000 won, 200,0000 won and 36,006,006.

The assertion and judgment - The fact of the loan of this case and the balance of the principal of the loan with respect to the due date and delay damages, but there is a dispute about the obligation and scope of the defendant.

Therefore, we examine the plaintiff's assertion of the due date of payment in relation to damages for delay and damages for delay in the past.

In the initial complaint, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant lent the above money to the Defendant on the ground that the funds were needed to purchase the land “C and seven parcels,” and that on June 2, 2006, the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff’s money with loans secured by the said “C and seven parcels of land (mortgage).” However, the Plaintiff claimed damages for delay on November 3, 2016 due to no interest agreement on the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim, but there was no land agreement on the part of the Plaintiff, and on the date of the second pleading, at the time of purchase of the land “C” among the above parcels of land, the Plaintiff loaned the funds to the Defendant and sold the said land.