1. The defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. Expenses for filing an appeal, and those for filing an application for the return of provisional payments.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case in this case are as follows: (a) adding "related" to "H" in the front of the "original activation" in the 3th sentence of the first instance judgment; (b) "H" in the 3th sentence of the third instance judgment; (c) "C is responsible (Article 5); (d) "K" in the 5th sentence of the 16th sentence as "J"; and (e) "K" in the 5th sentence as "J"; and (e) "K" in the 16th sentence as "J" is the same as the reasons for the first instance judgment, except for adding the following determination as to the allegations added by the defendant in the trial and the application for the return of provisional payment: (c) it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion asserts that, since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 4, 2015, the extinctive prescription was completed according to the short-term extinctive prescription for the interest claim of KRW 111,313,972 accrued from October 8, 2010 to March 4, 2012.

B. Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act provides that “claim with a period of less than one year” that takes part in the short-term extinctive prescription for three years under Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act refers to a claim that is regularly paid for a period of less than one year (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da25302, Sept. 20, 196; 2005Da65821, Feb. 22, 2007); and damages for delay arising from a delay in pecuniary obligation are not an interest for which the nature of the damages is not an interest; and it is not an “claim with a period of less than one year” under Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act, and thus,

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da42141 Decided November 10, 1998, the Defendant borrowed KRW 330 million from the Plaintiff on October 8, 2010 and determined the due date for payment of interest as October 30, 201, and 24% per annum (which did not specify the time and method of payment of interest). Thus, insofar as the period and method of payment of interest are not separately determined.