1. The Defendant is at the rate of 15% per annum from July 28, 2016 to the date of full payment with respect to KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff.

1. In full view of the descriptions and videos in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1, the plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the defendant around July 10, 2008 without setting the repayment date and interest, and the plaintiff demanded the return of the above loan several times thereafter.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from July 28, 2016 to the date following the day on which the copy of the instant complaint was served as requested by the Plaintiff as to the above loan amounting to KRW 50 million and the day following the day on which the copy of the instant complaint was served as requested by the Plaintiff.

2. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s argument that the due date has not yet arrived because the Defendant did not set the due date. However, barring any special circumstance, the due date for the loan claim, the obligation to which the due date has not been set, is due at the time of the request for performance by setting a reasonable period (see Articles 603(2) and 387 of the Civil Act), and as seen earlier, it is recognized that the Plaintiff requested several reimbursements, and thus, the due date has already arrived before the instant lawsuit. Therefore, the Defendant’s argument is without merit. However, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s lending of KRW 50 million to the Defendant was not the Plaintiff’s money. However, the Plaintiff’s lending of KRW 50 million to the Defendant was seen earlier, and the source of the money could be at issue in the legal reserve of inheritance between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but the instant lawsuit seeking the return of the loan could not be a key issue in

(q) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff only kept the money that he received from his father as a mother’s account. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on this portion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.