대여금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 29,051,451 and the interest rate of KRW 24% per annum from October 16, 2016 to the date of full payment.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole, the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,00,000 to the Defendant on September 3, 2015 (24% per annum), the due date for payment specified on February 3, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant loan”) or the instant loan (hereinafter “the instant loan”). The Defendant paid KRW 3,00,000 on February 15, 2016, KRW 3,000 on July 4, 2016, KRW 3,000,000 on July 4, 2016, and KRW 9,000,000 on October 3, 2016, to the Plaintiff.
2. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant paid KRW 19,00,000 to the Plaintiff after the loan of this case.
In the above-mentioned facts, whether the Defendant repaid the remainder of KRW 10,000,000 other than these KRW 9,000,000 in addition to the above-mentioned facts, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of reimbursement of KRW 10,000 is without merit.
3. In excess of the legal effect granted by the Defendant’s payment of the amount repaid by the Defendant’s satisfaction of performance, there is an agreement between the parties on the designation of appropriation of performance and appropriation of performance.
Any person who claims that the obligation in question has been discharged to the full amount of the obligation in question, or that the obligation in question has been discharged to the full amount, shall be liable to prove such fact.
(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da49338 delivered on February 22, 1994). On the other hand, in cases of appropriation of expenses, interest, and principal, the order of appropriation under Article 479 of the Civil Act is stipulated in the order of appropriation for performance, and Article 476 of the Civil Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to the designation of appropriation for performance. Thus, barring any special agreement between the parties, such appropriation shall be made in the order of expenses, interest, and principal
There is no evidence to deem that there was a special agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the Defendant’s repayment of obligation (the Defendant asserted that the Defendant appropriated the above KRW 9,00,000 to the principal, but there is no evidence to recognize it). The interest is given in the order of appropriation of obligation under Article 479(1) of the Civil Act.