1. The Defendant’s KRW 395,486,568 among the Plaintiff and KRW 364,630,136 among the Plaintiff, shall be from July 25, 2015 to February 18, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 12, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 370,000,000 to the Defendant on December 12, 2008, with the due date set as of December 12, 2008, and the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 10% per annum if the said amount is not paid to the Plaintiff by the due date.

B. The Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff each amount indicated in the “amount of repayment” column of the attached Table of the date of repayment performance as of each day indicated in the “date of repayment” table for the above loan.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5, each entry of this Court's standing post office's standing post office's order to submit financial transaction information, the whole purport of the arguments

2. According to the facts found in the judgment on the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a loan of KRW 370,000,000 and damages for delay. Since the defendant's repayment amount to the plaintiff is insufficient to extinguish all the above loan, the repayment amount should be appropriated in the order of statutory appropriation, and the result of the appropriation of performance is as shown in the attached Table of Appropriation of Performance.

Therefore, as of July 24, 2015, the Defendant, as of July 24, 2015, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 395,486,568 (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 364,630,136 and damages for delay remaining after appropriation of KRW 30,856,432) and the principal amount of KRW 364,630,136 from July 25, 2015 to February 18, 2016, for which it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 10% per annum under the agreement and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion argues that KRW 100,000,00,000, which the Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff on June 19, 2015, was to be designated and appropriated to the principal. As such, the order of appropriation under Article 479 of the Civil Act in the case of appropriation for performance to the principal, is statutory and is given to the order of appropriation for performance.