1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following parts, which are added as follows: (a) No. 3 of the judgment of the first instance, No. 5 of the judgment of the first instance.

2. Additional part of the Civil Act provides that "where multiple debtors become joint and several parties to the Civil Act, in the absence of any special declaration of intention, the multiple debtors shall bear the installment obligations. However, in light of the nature of the payment, practices of the transaction, the intentions of the parties concerned, the relationship between the parties and the transaction circumstances, etc., if any, the multiple debtors bear an indivisible obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26521, Aug. 20, 2014; 201-1, No. 6-1, No. 6-1, No. 1, No. 1, and No. 1, and No. G, based on the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, the Plaintiff and G borrowed KRW 150,00,00 to the Defendant on January 29, 208, and paid KRW 200,000 to the Defendant on February 1, 208, the Plaintiff’s maximum amount of debt amount of KRW 2000,8.100.

4.1. It can be recognized that the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,750,000 (=150,000,000 x 0.25) interest on the total amount of KRW 150,000,000, monthly loan (i.e., the interest on KRW 50,000). As such, in light of the facts that the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate to the Defendant and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the total amount of the obligation as the secured claim, and that the Plaintiff paid interest on the total amount of the loan amount of KRW 148,70,000,000, almost all of which were deposited into the Plaintiff’s account and paid the interest on the total amount of the obligation, the Plaintiff is indivisible