beta
Text
1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: the "ground" of the first and the "70,000,00" of the sixth nine parallel nine parallel parallels shall be "70,000,000"; the "60,000,000" of the seventh parallels seven parallels "60,000" shall be deemed "60,000,000"; and the same shall apply to the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the portion "the invalidity of the appropriation for agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 7th nine to nineteen parallels 8 19,000,000" and the part "the invalidity of the appropriation for agreement in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act" shall not be appropriated when the dividends distributed in the auction of the defendant's security interest fall short of the whole secured claims secured by several secured parties, for the execution of the security interest of the defendant's claim.
However, the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security consists of 121 original claims, 2.3 principal claims from 25th to 27th of the principal claims, 70 principal claims from 25th to 27th of the principal claims, and 4.2 promissory notes deposit claims (No. 1169, 208 No. 1170, 2008, 2008).
Therefore, the claim for damages for delay of the loan claim of this case is extinguished due to all repayment when the expenses, interest, and principal are appropriated in order of the above (4) expenses for the claim, interest, and principal amount.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking 600,000,000 won out of damages for delay should be dismissed.
B. (1) If the dividend distributed at an auction to exercise a security right is insufficient to extinguish all of the secured claims held by the secured party, the designated appropriation of performance is not allowed under Article 476 of the Civil Code, and it is not permissible between the obligee and the obligor.