1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasons why the court should explain the facts of recognition are the same as the part of the judgment of the court of the first instance, and therefore, it shall accept them in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 14.20% per annum for the principal, accrued interest, accrued interest, overdue interest, and the total amount of expenses not paid to the Plaintiff from January 9, 2017 to January 9, 2017, the principal amount of KRW 68,00,000,000 per annum, the principal amount of KRW 15.13% per annum for the principal amount, KRW 20,320,467 for the principal amount, barring special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s defense of setting-off objection is a defense that the Plaintiff offsets the Plaintiff’s principal and interest against the Plaintiff’s claim for return of investment and dividends. As such, in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in evidence No. 27, the Defendant owned the Plaintiff’s claim for return of KRW 6,088,792, including investment, etc., and it is recognized that the due date has arrived on August 31, 2017, and it is apparent in the record that the Defendant’s written brief dated November 14, 2017, delivered to the Plaintiff on November 20, 2017 by the Defendant who declared his/her intention of set-off, and thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s respective claims are set-off on August 31, 2017.

In addition, in the case of a set-off, the legal principle of appropriation of performance under Articles 476 and 477 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis in accordance with Article 499 of the Civil Act, and there is no agreement or designation between the original defendant and the original defendant on the order of appropriation, and thus, the application of appropriation of performance to the cost, interest

Accordingly, the Defendant’s claim for return of KRW 6,088,792, including the Defendant’s investment, is first appropriated for KRW 812,94, overdue interest of KRW 17,503,276, which is the cost, and eventually, the part of the Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendant is extinguished, and the overdue interest portion is 12,227,478 won (= = 17,503,276 - - 6,08,792 - 812,94).

Therefore, it is true.