The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

The reason why our court should explain about this case by partial acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is "In addition, the defendant on June 19, 2013 and the same year."

7. 3. The Plaintiff additionally lent 10 million won in total to the Plaintiff.

(On the other hand, the Defendant stated the preparatory brief dated October 14, 2014 on the date of the second hearing of the first instance, and led to the confession that, on June 10, 2013, the Plaintiff settled the details of monetary transactions and agreed on the loan balance at the time of preparing the loan certificate with the Plaintiff until June 10, 2013. However, the Defendant alleged that the amount agreed at the time was 90,000 won or more, but there is no evidence that the previous confession was contrary to the truth and there is no evidence that the previous confession was made due to mistake). The Defendant added the phrase “as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, it is identical to the statement in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.”

The plaintiff, June 30, 2013, 200,000 won, 300,000 won for the defendant

7. 22.1.5 million won, 1.1 million won on the 23th of the same month, 2.5 million won on the 24th of the same month, 2.2 million won on the 25th of the same month, and the same year;

8. 23.8 million won, 2.2 million won on the 28th day of the same month, and 2.5 million won on February 4, 2014, and 25 million won on the aggregate, are not contested by the parties. Thus, such payment must be appropriated for the repayment of the instant loan.

The defendant issued a loan certificate to the plaintiff on June 10, 2013 and received it on the 19th of the same month and the same year.

7. 3. The Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff. Of KRW 25 million repaid by the Plaintiff, 10 million out of the total amount repaid by the Plaintiff is for the repayment of the additional loan, and thus, it cannot be appropriated for the repayment of the instant loan.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff, while paying KRW 10,000 as such, designated the obligation appropriated for repayment according to the Defendant’s assertion, and thus, it should follow the order of statutory appropriation for performance under Article 477 of the Civil

Each such performance shall be made at the time of performance.