1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 26 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 1, 2015 to August 12, 2015.

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the defendant prepared a loan certificate with respect to KRW 26 million to the plaintiff on April 30, 2005. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 26 million interest per annum under the Civil Act from May 1, 2015 to August 12, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order with respect to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% interest per annum under the Civil Act and 20% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from May 1, 2005 to April 30, 2015 with respect to the above 26 million won from May 1, 2005 to April 30, 2015. However, since there is no proof of assertion as to the due date for repayment of the instant borrowed money, the above borrowed money obligation constitutes a debt for which the due date has not been specified, and if there is no due date for performance,

However, insofar as there is no assertion that the Plaintiff filed a claim for the loan of this case with the Defendant prior to the delivery of the original copy of the payment order of this case, the Defendant shall be deemed liable for delay from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order of this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim in excess

2. The defendant's assertion is first asserted that the loan of this case was borrowed from the plaintiff's mother, not the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Next, since the defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription has expired, the fact that the defendant prepared a loan certificate on April 30, 2005 is as seen earlier. It is evident that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was filed on April 15, 2015, which was before the expiration of 10 years from the lawsuit of this case, and therefore, it is relevant to the loan of this case.