1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff ordering payment below shall be revoked.

1. The scope of the trial in this court claimed the payment of the proceeds from the sale of State property in installments, ① principal, ② interest on the principal in installments (hereinafter “interest in installments”), ③ arrears (hereinafter “interest in arrears”) on the accrued interest period (60 months) under the State Property Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the principal, and ④ delay damages under the private law on the period from the expiration of the period of the occurrence of the overdue interest on the principal to the date of the full payment (hereinafter “repaid damages”).

The first instance court accepted the entire principal claim and ② part of the claim for interest and late payment penalty in installments, ② and ③ the remainder of the claim for interest and late payment penalty in installments, ④ all of the claim for interest and late payment penalty in installments.

On this issue, only the plaintiff appealed the claim for damages for delay.

Therefore, the scope of this court’s adjudication is limited to (4) claims for damages for delay (as seen below, a simple and economic remedy procedure is provided in the National Tax Collection Act mutatis mutandis with respect to overdue charges. Thus, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, seeking payment of overdue charges by means of civil procedure is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da203588, Sept. 4, 2014). Although the first instance court partly accepted a claim for overdue charges, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not appeal, and thus, the claim for overdue charges is excluded from the scope of adjudication in this court). The scope of the Plaintiff’s appeal and the scope of adjudication in this court’s appeal are as follows. On the other hand, even if the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the part of the claim for overdue charges, barring any special circumstance, seeking payment of overdue charges by means of civil procedure is not allowed. Therefore, the subject

(1) The plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case to the plaintiff 55,298,600 won and 377,662,00 won among them.