1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap 2, 4, and 5 (including a branch number if there is a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent KRW 12,180,000 to the defendant about 80 times from May 12, 2003 to April 20, 205, and the plaintiff sent to the defendant a content-certified mail demanding that the above loan be repaid by January 17, 2006, and that the above content-certified mail reaches the defendant around that time.

Judgment

In this case where there is no evidence to acknowledge the repayment period of the above loan, the above loan should be deemed not to have been determined.

In cases of a loan for consumption for which no time of return has been agreed, the lender shall demand the return thereof with a reasonable period fixed (Article 603(2) of the Civil Act), and the borrower shall assume any liability for delay from the time when a reasonable period has elapsed after the lender urged the return.

In this case, since the contents-certified mail, which the plaintiff paid 12,180,000 won to the defendant by January 20, 2006, reaches the defendant on or around January 17, 2006, the plaintiff's peremptory notice is not reasonable. However, even in this case, it is effective as the peremptory notice, and the defendant shall be liable for delay from the time when a reasonable period has elapsed objectively after the peremptory notice.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan 12,180,000 won and damages for delay from February 1, 2006, where a considerable period of time has elapsed after the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the performance of the above loan claim.

The defendant's defense of performance of the defendant's defense is a defense that the defendant repaid the above loan, and therefore, the defendant's repayment of the loan amounting to KRW 1,00,000 on January 20, 2007 and KRW 1,000,000 on September 20, 2007 is not in dispute between the parties, or acknowledged by the purport of the whole entry and pleading in Section 7.

On the other hand, the plaintiff.