1. The defendant shall pay 80,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from March 31, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. The description of the claim is as shown in the annexed Form “the cause of the claim.”

2. Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act applicable provisions of Acts.

3. The Plaintiff partially dismissed part of a loan also claims damages for delay from September 10, 2015 to the date of this judgment. Thus, the fact that the repayment period of the loan was not determined between the original Defendant and the original Defendant is as seen earlier. In the case of a loan for consumption where the payment period is not determined, the lender shall demand the return of the loan within a reasonable period of time (Article 603(2) of the Civil Act). If the considerable period of time expires, the lender shall demand the repayment of the loan. The repayment of the loan may take the responsibility of delay of the borrower. The notice of repayment of the loan may take the delivery of the copy of the written complaint, and the repayment period

However, there is no proof as to whether the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the return of the above loan prior to the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, and rather, it is apparent in the record that the original copy of the instant payment order claiming the return of the above loan was served on the Defendant on February 12, 2016, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the payment period of the above loan has arrived on March 30, 2016, which is the date when the pertinent period expired.

Therefore, we cannot accept the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay exceeding the scope recognized in the disposition.