1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Rule] The 4th to 15th of the first instance court's decision shall be as follows.

“There is no evidence to acknowledge that the repayment period for the instant loan has already arrived before May 25, 1999, as alleged by the Plaintiff, as the date of the receipt of the loan. Even if the repayment period for the loan has already arrived before the completion of the above loan, it may be deemed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant have an intention to postpone the payment period on May 25, 199. Since there is no agreement on the repayment period for the loan certificate prepared by the Defendant on May 25, 1999, the said loan is deemed to have no agreement on the repayment period. Therefore, the obligor is liable for delay from the receipt of the request for performance under Article 387(2) of the Civil Act, so the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Defendant the remainder of the principal and interest with the content certification as of March 6, 2013, which is the date of performance, and the Defendant still has an obligation to pay damages for delay (10 years) to the Defendant for delay before the expiration of the three-year period as of March 20, 2013.”