1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked:

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 2010, the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”) without setting the interest and the due date for payment.

B. On April 2016, the Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant repay the instant loan to a police officer. Accordingly, the Defendant paid KRW 200,000 to the Plaintiff each of the following dates: (a) May 11, 2016; (b) June 21, 2016; (c) July 18, 2016; (d) August 4, 2016; (e) September 30, 2016; (e) October 31, 2016; and (e) November 29, 2016; and (e) January 23, 2016; and (e) January 25, 2017.

【Grounds for Recognition】 1, 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff lent the instant loan to the Defendant without determining the interest and the due date, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the repayment of the instant loan to the Defendant on April 2016 is as follows. Although the time and date of the Defendant’s claim for the repayment of the instant loan is not clear, “the time and date of claiming the repayment of the instant loan to the Defendant is a policeman on April 201,” it means the period from 11 to 20 days per month, and in ordinary, “net order” means the period from the 10th to the 20th day of April, so long as the Plaintiff did not prove any other evidence in the instant case where the Plaintiff sought the payment for delay damages, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff reached the due date on April 20, 2016, which is the last day of the due date, and thus, there is a delay in the liability for the instant loan obligations from April

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the instant loan KRW 20 million and the damages for delay from April 21, 2016 to the date of full payment.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion on exemption (1) The Defendant exempted the Plaintiff from KRW 10 million out of the loan debt of this case in April 2016, 2016.

“Although it is alleged to the effect that “B” is alleged, only the Defendant’s unilateral talks are recorded, and the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the fact of the Defendant’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(2) The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of repayment shall be added to the Plaintiff.