1. The Defendant’s KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from August 19, 2016 to December 1, 2016.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff leased KRW 100 million to the Defendant on June 25, 2010 that the judgment on the cause of the claim pertains to no dispute between the parties.

On the other hand, the plaintiff claimed damages for delay from the date of loan, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the interest agreement and the repayment period on the above loan claims.

Therefore, since the above loan claims shall be deemed a loan for consumption with no fixed maturity period, it shall be deemed that the due date shall expire after a considerable period has elapsed from the time when the plaintiff notified the defendant of his return pursuant to Article 603(2) of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 63Da131, May 9, 1963). There is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff notified the defendant of the return of the above loan prior to the filing of the lawsuit in

If so, it is reasonable to view that the period of repayment of the above loan claim has arrived on August 18, 2016 after the lapse of one month from July 18, 2016, when a copy of the complaint in this case stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to request the above loan was served on the Defendant.

Therefore, from August 19, 2016, the above loan amounting to KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until December 1, 2016, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the above loan amounting to KRW 100 million, and 15% interest per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.