1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from January 1, 2014 to September 6, 2016.

1. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the respective descriptions in subparagraphs 1 through 9 of the Loan Claim A and the purport of the entire pleadings.

A. The Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from C on February 23, 2009.

B. On February 23, 2010, the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant’s creditor C’s account (new bank D) by means of remitting KRW 50 million to the Defendant’s creditor.

(4) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s claim for the repayment of the loan to the Defendant against the Defendant is insufficient to acknowledge the payment period agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the payment period agreement. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan to the Defendant against the Defendant may claim damages for delay after the enforcement of the claim under Article 387(2) of the Civil Act, in a situation where the payment period is not determined separately. According to the evidence No. 7, the time when the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repay the loan to the Defendant is recognized as the time when the Plaintiff requested the repayment of the loan to the Defendant on the date of 2013.

2. Conclusion

A. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 1, 2014 to the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint from January 1, 2014 to the date of the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to

B. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.