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. The assertion and judgment

A. On April 25, 2017, the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 900,00 to the Defendant is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 900,000 and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant asserts that, inasmuch as the Defendant borrowed the above money from the Plaintiff as money for gambling, it did not have any obligation to return it to the Plaintiff for illegal consideration, or that the said loan was fully repaid even without such obligation.

However, the evidence presented by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the above loan was stuffed money or the defendant fully repaid the above loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the above arguments of the defendant.

C. Ultimately, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from February 11, 2019, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, which includes the Plaintiff’s intent to return, until December 19, 2019, which is deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation, from February 11, 2019, until December 19, 2019, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the date of full payment.

The Plaintiff seek for the payment of damages for delay from April 25, 2017, which is the date of lease.

However, the fact that there was no separate interest agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was the Plaintiff, and as alleged by the Plaintiff, there is no evidence that the repayment period of the instant loan was within this frame from the lending date, and it is reasonable to view the instant loan as a monetary loan with no fixed payment period.

However, a monetary loan for consumption with no fixed term of time is liable for delay from the time when a reasonable period of time has lapsed after the lender notified the return.