1. Of the judgments of the first instance court, the part against the defendant in the judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay 100,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

1. In full view of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the defendant on June 25, 2013 without fixing the period of repayment (hereinafter "the contract of this case"), and the co-defendant D of the first instance court, who was the representative director of the defendant at the time, concluded the contract of this case on behalf of the defendant with the plaintiff.

Therefore, from April 15, 2014, which is one month after the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act until January 29, 2016, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment, to the date of the ruling of the competent court that deems it reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff is seeking damages for delay from the day after the duplicate of the complaint of this case is served.

The main text of Article 603(2) of the Civil Act provides that "if no time for return has been agreed, the lender shall demand the return thereof with a reasonable period fixed." Accordingly, the borrower shall be liable for delay of performance only after the reasonable period prescribed in the above provision has elapsed.

The plaintiff, as the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, notified the defendant to return the above KRW 100 million ( there is no assertion and proof as to the fact that the plaintiff already notified the return prior to the filing of the suit of this case) and only one month which appears to be a considerable period for the return of the above KRW 100 million, the defendant was liable

Therefore, among the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay, the part from April 14, 201 after one month from the day after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case is without merit.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(a) Cash storage certificate;