1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment exceeding the following amount shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the defendant's spouse C who is the former spouse.

B. The following day after obtaining a loan of KRW 30,000,000 from a national bank on July 16, 2009

7. 17. The Defendant remitted the full amount of the above loans to the Defendant.

C. On August 17, 2009, the Defendant paid KRW 280,000 on a regular basis at the intervals of 150,000 or two months, including the amount of KRW 150,000 to the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 200,000 on a monthly basis at the intervals of 150,000 or two months. From the date of remitting KRW 10,000,000 on October 24, 201, the Defendant paid KRW 10,000 on a regular basis each month at the intervals of 10,000 or two months until November 28, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant without fixing the due date for reimbursement, and only KRW 10,000,000 among them was repaid. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff and delay damages therefrom.

B. Furthermore, in the case of a loan for consumption where there is no agreement on the time of return as to the starting point of the damages for delay, the lender shall demand the return thereof with a reasonable period fixed (Article 603(2) of the Civil Act), and the borrower shall be liable for delay from the time when the reasonable period of time elapses.

No evidence exists to prove that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the return of the above loan prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, and the fact that the Plaintiff served on November 28, 2016 the certified copy of the decision on performance recommendation of this case for which the Plaintiff sought the return of the above loan to the Defendant is apparent in the record. As such, the above loan obligation ought to be deemed to have arrived on December 28, 2016, when one month has elapsed since November 28, 2016, which was the delivery date of the certified copy of the decision on performance recommendation of this case.

C. Therefore, the Defendant’s remaining loans amounting to KRW 20,000,000 and its scope from December 29, 2016, the following day following the above repayment period, are the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation.