beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the court’s reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. As such, this part of the court’s reasoning is cited pursuant to the main text of Article 4
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The plaintiff's assertion is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 50 million won the loan of this case and 5% per annum from the above loan date to the service date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
B. As to the claim for damages for delay, there is no dispute over the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not agree on the time for repayment of the instant loan, and as to the instant loan, the lender is obligated to demand the return by fixing a reasonable period of time (Article 603(2) of the Civil Act). As seen earlier, as the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the performance of the instant loan repayment on February 19, 2018, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was liable for delay from March 1, 2018 when the reasonable period of time expires.
[A] Even if the Plaintiff intended to seek “interest” from the above borrowing date to the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, it cannot be deemed that the agreement on interest in a monetary loan for consumption is not necessarily accompanied by the lending and lending under the law, and that there was such agreement in light of the transaction norms (see Supreme Court Decision 59Da125, Feb. 25, 1960). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for interest is without merit, and there is no dispute that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not expressly agree on interest between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is deemed to have expired for a considerable period from March 1, 2018 to the date of receiving the demand for performance of the obligation.