1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 17,010,308 for the Plaintiff and its related costs from May 16, 2015 to March 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 23, 2014, the Defendant leased KRW 70,000,00 as lease deposit, No. 101 of the first floor of the first floor of the plot of Land, D and one parcel, Nam-si, Nam-si, Namyang-si, and one other.

B. On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 7,000,00 in the name of the said lease deposit, KRW 1% per interest month, due date on July 5, 2014, and KRW 50,000 in the name of the said lease deposit, and KRW 1,200,000 in the name of the Defendant’s director’s expenses, on June 25, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 51,20,000 in the name of the said lease deposit, as interest monthly and July 5, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant loan” in total) C.

The Plaintiff received each payment of KRW 17,000,000 from the Defendant (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant payment”) on March 17, 2015, from the Defendant (or from the Defendant’s Dong E’s account to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of F), and KRW 20,000,000 on April 22, 2015, and KRW 10,000,000 on May 15, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant payment”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Civil Act Article 479 provides that the order of appropriation for payment of expenses, interest, and principal is stipulated in the order of appropriation under Article 479 of the Civil Act, and Article 476 of the Civil Act as to the appropriation of performance is not applicable mutatis mutandis. Thus, in principle, expenses, interest, and principal shall be appropriated in the order of appropriation of performance. Although the debtor and creditor cannot designate the order of appropriation unilaterally differently from the above legal order, in case where there is a special agreement between the parties or where it is deemed that the other party has not raised an objection without delay, and that an implied agreement has been reached due to the other party's unilateral designation, the order of appropriation may be acknowledged differently from the order of appropriation.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu7262 Decided November 9, 1990; 2009Da12399 Decided June 11, 2009, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu7262, Nov. 9, 199).

Judgment

In light of the above legal principles.