1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff received the Plaintiff’s insurance terms and conditions loan and lent KRW 7.5 million to the Defendant, and agreed to receive interest of KRW 100,000 per month in order to preserve the interest on the loan to be borne by the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant paid only KRW 7.3 million out of the interest (=100,000 x 73 months) from June 2012 to June 2018.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 1,50,000 won = 4 million won with interest on the loan principal (=7.5 million won with interest on the remaining interest on the loan principal (=7.3 million won - 3.3 million won)) and damages for delay with interest on the principal amount of KRW 7.5 million.

B. The Defendant repaid KRW 2.5 million to August 9, 2016, out of KRW 7.5 million, and thereafter repaid KRW 2,100,010.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 7.5 million to the Defendant around March 4, 2012 (hereinafter “instant loan”) may be recognized by either dispute between the parties or by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff agreed to receive interest of KRW 100,000 per month on the instant loan from the Defendant solely on the grounds of the respective descriptions in subparagraphs 2 through 7 and the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

However, in cases where one of the parties asserts that a monetary loan for consumption exists and seeks a payment of interest based on the agreed rate, barring any special circumstance, damages for delay for the period after the maturity date of the loan claim should be deemed to have been claimed, and even if the agreed rate is not recognized, the purport of claiming damages for delay at the statutory rate is to be deemed to have been included (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da22407, Sept. 26, 2017). According to the evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the Defendant agreed to repay the loan of this case to the Plaintiff by August 9, 2017, according to the above facts and legal principles.