1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded by this court, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

The appeal of this case as to the legitimacy of the appeal of this case is seeking a change of revocation in favor of one's own disadvantageous judgment. Thus, in principle, the appeal of this case is not permitted against the judgment of the whole winning the case. However, in a case where a lawsuit for demanding performance of a claim for a divisible claim is filed and it is not clearly stated that the remaining part is reserved and only a part is claimed, the res judicata effect of the final judgment shall also affect the remaining part, and thus, it cannot be re-claimed as to the remaining part by a separate lawsuit. Thus, if an appeal is not allowed to extend the remaining part of the claim, the obligee who won the whole part of the claim shall lose the opportunity to correct the remaining part, and in such

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da12276 delivered on October 24, 1997, etc.). In this case, the plaintiff claimed against the defendant for the payment of the loan 20 million won and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day of the service of the original copy of the payment order of this case to the day of complete payment, and won in full, the plaintiff filed an appeal, and the plaintiff also sought the remainder of the damages for delay (the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from February 12, 2015 to the day of service of the original copy of the payment order). In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the plaintiff has the interest to file an appeal to extend the remainder of the damages for delay by claiming only a part of the judgment of the court of first instance and claiming the remainder of the damages for delay.

On April 25, 2014, the plaintiff lent 3 million won to the defendant on the basis of the judgment on the merits.