The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that: (a) the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 369,829,823 out of the principal and interest of the second loan of KRW 452,066,513 on October 8, 2009 in the auction procedure of the second loan of KRW 452,06,513; and (b) appropriated the amount in the order of principal and interest pursuant to Article 14 of the Plaintiff’s overdue installment and overdue loan management regulations; and (c) subsequently, the second loan of KRW 82,236,690 remains.

Examining the records in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the above recognition and determination by the lower court are justifiable.

In doing so, there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the appropriation of obligation under Article 477 of the Civil Act,

The Supreme Court's decision cited in the ground of appeal is not appropriate to invoke the method of appropriation of claims in the event that the secured party who only one secured debt is insufficient to extinguish the entire secured debt in the auction procedure, as the plaintiff in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.