However, as long as there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement on the repayment period as to the above loan, the Plaintiff’s claim on the loan against the Defendant is a loan for consumption with no stipulation at the time of repayment and shall be liable for delay from the date on which a considerable period of time has lapsed (Article 603(2) of the Civil Act). Since it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff served the Defendant with a certified copy of the decision on performance recommendation on August 14, 2013 on the complaint of this case containing an expression of intent to seek repayment of the above loan against the Defendant, it shall be determined that the Defendant’s repayment period has arrived on September 14, 2013 after a considerable period of time has elapsed (i.e., interest and delay damages before September 14, 2013 shall not be accepted). Therefore, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for the remaining amount after deducting the Plaintiff’s repayment amount of KRW 5 million from the loan amount of KRW 20,000,000, 1500 and 201.5.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant's defense of payment is defense that the plaintiff paid the above KRW 15,00,00 to the plaintiff, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above fact of payment only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply). Since there is no other evidence to support this, the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. On September 7, 2004, the first defendant's defense of the settlement agreement was in force on September 7, 2004, the plaintiff was in force in Seocheon-gu D.