1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings with respect to Gap evidence No. 2 as to the cause of the claim and the testimony of the witness C of the party trial, the plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 10,000,000 to the defendant on January 20, 2012 and to receive KRW 2,000,000 as principal and interest KRW 50,000 on each week from January 27, 2012.

On the other hand, on January 27, 2012, the Defendant repaid KRW 2,050,000 to the Plaintiff on January 27, 2012, and the fact that the Defendant intended to cover KRW 2,000,000 with the principal of the loan and interest KRW 50,000 with the loan interest accrued at that time is

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining principal of the loan amount of KRW 8,000,000 and interest or delay damages thereon.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, in addition to the repayment of KRW 2,050,00 on January 27, 2012 as above, the Defendant repaid KRW 2,050,000 on behalf of the Defendant on January 27, 2012 and February 3, 2012; and KRW 2,050,000 on February 3, 2012; and KRW 2,00,000 on April 13, 2012; and that the Plaintiff and the Defendant known to the Defendant repaid all of the above loans on behalf of the Defendant.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 2, the defendant's repayment of KRW 200,00 to the plaintiff on April 13, 2012 is recognized.

However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff additional money in addition to the above KRW 2,050,000 as of January 27, 2012 and KRW 200,000 as of April 13, 2012, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining argument is not accepted as it is without merit.

B. Meanwhile, KRW 200,000, which the Defendant repaid on April 13, 2012, is insufficient to repay the principal of the above loan, and there is no evidence to deem that there was a separate agreement or designation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the method of appropriation of the above amount, and thus, the above amount of repayment takes precedence over the interest on the loan accrued until the time of payment according to statutory appropriation of performance.