The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 26,252,198 as well as 5% per annum from July 25, 2019 to October 14, 2020, and thereafter.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant on August 1, 2016, and KRW 10,000,000 on August 6, 2016, respectively (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant loan”), does not conflict between the parties.

B. The Plaintiff seek damages for delay from the day following the service of the original copy of the instant payment order with respect to the instant loan.

There is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant have set the repayment period of the instant loan.

In the case of a loan without a fixed period of time, the borrower is liable for the delay of payment from the time when a reasonable period of time has elapsed after the lender notified the return (see Article 603(2) of the Civil Act). Since there is no evidence to prove the fact that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the return of the loan of this case before filing an application for the payment order of this case (the Incheon District Court 2019 tea2802), the Defendant shall be liable for delay of the loan of this case from the July 25, 2019 after the lapse of one month deemed to be a reasonable period from June 24, 2019 when the original copy of the payment order was served.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay in excess is without merit.

C. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan of this case KRW 60,000,000 and damages for delay from July 25, 2019.

2. Determination on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff exempted the Defendant from the instant loan obligations through D on July 3, 2018, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant defense 1) The defendant defenses to the effect that wages, retirement allowances, and damages for delay, including holiday work allowances, against the plaintiff, are offset against the plaintiff's loan claims in this case by using them as automatic claims. 2) The defendant's defenses to the effect that the defendant set off the automatic claim against the plaintiff's loan claims in this case. 1) The defendant's defenses based on the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, respectively.