1. The Defendant’s KRW 166,617,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from September 20, 2015 to June 24, 2016.

1. The plaintiff asserted and determined that since the plaintiff lent 350 million won to the defendant around January 1, 2004 and received an amount equivalent to 354 million won from the defendant, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the interest calculated by applying the rate of 5% per annum from the date of lending the above loan to the interest and the principal, and that the remaining principal amount shall be 285,852,121 won and damages for delay.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as a whole, even though the Plaintiff leased KRW 354 million to the Defendant on or around January 1, 2004 without fixing the due date, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the interest rate of KRW 5% per annum regarding the above loan, and the Plaintiff received KRW 187,383,00 in total from the Defendant during the period from January 5, 2004 to November 5, 2014 as shown in the attached Table is the Plaintiff. Thus, the above repayment amount of KRW 187,383,00 was fully appropriated for the principal amount of KRW 16,617,00 (= KRW 3540 million - KRW 187,383,000) and damages for delay.

Furthermore, in the case of a loan for consumption where there is no agreement on the time of repayment as to the starting point of starting damages for delay, the lender shall set a reasonable period and demand the return thereof (Article 603(2) of the Civil Act). The borrower shall be liable for delay from the time when a reasonable period has elapsed after the lender notified the return of the loan. There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the return of the loan prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case. The fact that the duplicate of the complaint in this case was served on August 19, 2015 is apparent in the record and the fact that the copy of the complaint in this case was served on the Defendant, and it can be deemed that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the return of the loan in this case. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the loan obligation in this case arrived on September 19, 2015, one month after the delivery date of the copy

Therefore, the defendant.