1. The defendant shall calculate the amount of KRW 37,958,020 to the plaintiff at the rate of 12% per annum from June 6, 2019 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that mainly engages in the sales business of various agricultural products, and the Defendant is a person who engages in the agricultural products distribution business, such as collecting and selling the company in Gyeong-dong-si.

B. On October 5, 2015, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50 million to the Defendant without the interest and the due date for payment under the pretext of the shipment guidance for sale.

C. On February 12, 2016, the Defendant repaid KRW 12,041,980 to the Plaintiff.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the Defendant’s above loan obligations are obligations without fixing the time limit, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the principal of the loan remaining after repayment (=50,000,000 - 12,041,980) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from June 6, 2019 to the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case where the Defendant is demanded to discharge performance.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that even though the Plaintiff intended to purchase the company and the entire quantity stored in the warehouse from the Defendant on September 2015, the Defendant could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because only a part of them were purchased and the damage was incurred to the Defendant. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s submission of the evidence No. 1 was incurred due to the same cause as the Defendant alleged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, the Defendant’s above assertion is not accepted

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.