1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 24% per annum from January 29, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From around 2005, the Defendant borrowed 40,000,000 won from the Plaintiff to the point where it is impossible to know the exact time when he borrowed money from the Plaintiff on several occasions, and additionally borrowed 40,000,000 won per month of the interest of KRW 80,000 (80,000) with the following content as follows: (a) written a loan certificate of KRW 2% per month of the interest of KRW 80,00 (0,000; hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

B. The loan certificate of this case contains a place where the loan period and the rate of damages for delay are written, but is not written.

C. After preparing the instant loan certificate, the Defendant repaid KRW 40,000,000 to the Plaintiff when the exact time is unknown.

(Fact that the plaintiff itself recognizes).

On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a document demanding the Defendant to return the above loan by content-certified mail.

(A) [Evidence 3] / [Grounds for Recognition] , entry of Evidence A 1, 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff leased KRW 80,00,000 to the Defendant without fixing the due date. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from January 29, 2019 to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks, with the exception of KRW 40,000,000,000, excluding KRW 40,000,000, which the Plaintiff had received reimbursement by himself, and the amount of the instant payment order, as requested by the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant's defense of repayment was prepared and paid the principal amount of KRW 60,000,000 after preparing the loan certificate of this case, and the interest was also paid in excess of KRW 20,000,000. However, there is no evidence to support the defendant's repayment of money exceeding the scope of the plaintiff's identity.

The defendant's defense of performance is without merit.

B. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is around 2007.