1. Defendant B’s KRW 6,250,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 20, 2015 to November 13, 2015.

1. Common fact-finding D lent 36 million won to Defendant B without setting the due date for payment (hereinafter referred to as the instant loan).

Defendant B paid 29,750,000 won in total over 21 times as a repayment.

D On August 5, 2014, on the same day, transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff, and notified Defendant B of the transfer of claims.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. Since Defendant B’s act of borrowing the above money from Defendant D is a commercial activity under the Commercial Act, Defendant B is entitled to file a claim for the statutory interest of 6% per annum pursuant to Article 55(1) of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, the amount of KRW 29,750,000 repaid by Defendant B remains 8,578,838 in the order of commercial interest and principal, so Defendant B is liable to pay to the Plaintiff who acquired the loan claim.

B. The fact that D, upon receiving a request from Defendant B, who was a university’s ship owner, lent money for the settlement of the price of goods, without an agreement on interest, is either a dispute between the parties or the Plaintiff is a person.

The commercial legal interest in Article 55(1) of the Commercial Code provides that when a merchant lends money to him/her in connection with his/her business, the legal interest can be claimed.

However, even if D is a merchant, it can be seen that it was lent not to his own business but to the relationship with Defendant E in light of the circumstances of the lending.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion about commercial legal interest is rejected.

However, the above loan constitutes a monetary loan contract which does not specify interest and the due date.

Therefore, Defendant B, from January 20, 2015 (the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case) which can be deemed to have lapsed a considerable period of time from the time when the Plaintiff notified the return of the KRW 6.25 million, which was calculated by subtracting KRW 29,750,000, which was already paid by Defendant B from KRW 36 million (the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case).