1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 70,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from November 4, 2016 to November 24, 2016.

Around August 2015, the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 70,000,000 to the Defendant on two occasions that the sum of KRW 70,000 is not disputed between the parties, or that it can be recognized by the statement in the evidence A Nos. 1 and 2.

Next, the plaintiff asserts that the repayment period was set at 30 days after the above lending date, while the defendant argued that he was set at 5 years after the lending date, but there is no evidence to support all the claims of the plaintiff and the defendant, and thus both parties' arguments are rejected.

Therefore, this is a loan for consumption with no agreement on the time of repayment. In this case, the lender shall demand the borrower to return the loan with a reasonable period fixed (see Article 603(1) of the Civil Act). However, it is clear in the record that the complaint of this case, which contains the Plaintiff’s intent to demand the return of the loan, reaches the Defendant on June 14, 2016. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the maturity period has arrived at around November 3, 2016, which is the date when the argument of this case was concluded after the lapse of a reasonable period. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan and the amount of the loan from November 4, 2016 to November 24, 2016, which is the date following the due date of the repayment, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day until the date of the repayment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.