A. On November 30, 2001, the Plaintiff agreed to pay 1% (500,000 won) monthly interest to the Defendant on the last day of each month, and lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant without setting the due date (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. From December 30, 2001 to June 30, 2008, the Defendant repaid KRW 500,000 as interest per month, and thereafter, paid to the Plaintiff additional KRW 10,000,000 on July 30, 201 and June 4, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay the balance of the loan of this case and interest and delay damages to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. (1) The Defendant asserts that (a) the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of reimbursement (A) the Plaintiff shall pay the principal to the Plaintiff KRW 10 million on July 30, 2012, and KRW 10 million on June 4, 2013, respectively; and (b) the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the Defendant at the time of repayment of the said amount, and thus, each of the above amounts should be appropriated for the principal by implied agreement.

With respect to the appropriation of performance to the expenses, interest, and principal, Article 479 of the Civil Act is stipulated in the order of appropriation, and Article 476 of the Civil Act on the appropriation of performance does not apply mutatis mutandis. Therefore, in principle, appropriation shall be made in the order of expenses, interest, and principal, and even if the debtor is not only the creditor but also the creditor, the order of appropriation cannot be designated unilaterally differently from the above order

However, if there is a special agreement between the parties or if it appears that the other party has not raised any objection to the unilateral designation of the parties without delay and the other party has reached an implied agreement, the order of appropriation may be recognized differently from the order of appropriation of the court.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da12399 Decided June 11, 2009). This case is the instant case.