1. The Defendant’s KRW 68,175,620 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 15% per annum from January 19, 2019 to May 31, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a credit transaction agreement with the Defendant to fully repay KRW 640,000,000 per annum and KRW 9% per annum on September 4, 2015, which is the expiration date of the credit period. On the same day, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 640,000,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. On November 20, 2014, in order to secure the instant loan, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction with the Seoul East Eastern District Court E on the basis of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (the maximum bond amount of KRW 832,00,000) that was completed in relation to the Songpa-gu Seoul apartment D, Songpa-gu Seoul. The decision on voluntary auction was rendered on November 21, 2014.

C. In the above voluntary auction case, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 741,873,130 on November 6, 2015, and appropriated KRW 640,000 for the repayment of the principal of the instant loan, and appropriated the remainder of KRW 101,873,130 for the repayment of overdue interest.

Accordingly, the interest rate of 68,175,620 won remains.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5, 10 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In the event of default of a monetary obligation, the principal claim and damages for delay arising from the principal claim are separate objects of lawsuit. On the other hand, Article 479 of the Civil Act is stipulated in the order of appropriation for performance to the principal, and Article 476 of the Civil Act as to the appropriation for performance is not applicable mutatis mutandis. Therefore, in principle, the expenses, interest, and principal claim should be appropriated in the order of appropriation, and even in the case of the debtor and the creditor, the order of appropriation can not be designated unilaterally differently from

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 that the implied agreement has been reached, the order of appropriation, unlike the order of appropriation, may be recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da12399 Decided June 11, 2009). In addition, it has already been made.