The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant 10,000,000 won on February 25, 2008, and the same year

2. 26.30,000,000 won, and the same year.

3. October 10, 100,000 won, total of KRW 50,000,000 per month, was lent by means of equal installment reimbursement of KRW 1,000,000 per month.

However, from May 13, 2008 to December 30, 2010, the Defendant repaid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 36,400,000 on six occasions.

The amount of repayment by the defendant should be first appropriated for the interest and delay damages on the above loan, and when calculating this, the above loan principal will remain as KRW 18,542,681 on December 30, 2010, which is the last day of repayment by the defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff and the damages for delay from December 31, 2010, which is the day following the date of the final repayment.

B. In a case where a debtor bears several obligations for the same kind of obligation to the same creditor, if the parties did not designate the obligation to be appropriated for repayment, the payment shall be made legally in accordance with Article 477 of the Civil Act. In particular, according to Article 477(4) of the Civil Act, in a case where the order of statutory appropriation of obligation is equal under Article 477(4) of the Civil Act, each obligation shall be appropriated for repayment in proportion to the proportion of each obligation. Thus, unlike the above proportional appropriation of obligation under the above proportional appropriation of obligation, there is an agreement between the parties on the

Any person who claims that the obligation in question has been fully satisfied with the obligation in the order of priority in the payment of the obligation in question shall bear the burden of proving the fact.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da49338 delivered on February 22, 1994, etc.). C.

Specific judgment is that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant the sum of KRW 50,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) from February 25, 2008 to March 10, 2008, and the Defendant lent the instant loan to the Defendant as the repayment of the instant loan.