1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from May 15, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. The quoted part

A. On March 14, 2013, the Plaintiff leased KRW 50,000,00 to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 50,000,000 and damages for delay.

(b) Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts;

2. The Plaintiff partially dismissed the part of the dismissal is seeking a loan of KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant and damages for delay from March 14, 2013, which is the date of payment of the above amount.

There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had determined the due date while lending the above money to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant loan is a loan for consumption with no agreement on the time of repayment, and the due date shall arrive only after the lapse of the period specified by Article 603(2) of the Civil Act after demanding the return of the loan.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the return of the loan prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the maturity period has arrived around May 14, 2015, which was the date when the copy of the instant complaint stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to request the performance was served on the Defendant, which was clearly recorded on the record from March 10, 2015.

Therefore, the Plaintiff can seek payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 15, 2015, which is the day following this sentencing date, to the Defendant. Therefore, the part claiming payment of damages for delay prior to such determination is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.