Order of Appropriation of Performance to Expenses, Interest and Principal

As Article 476 of the Civil Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to the appropriation of performance to expenses, interest and principal, Article 476 of the Civil Act does not apply mutatis mutandis, and unless there is a special agreement between the parties, such appropriation shall be made in the order of expenses, interest and principal, and not only the debtor but also the creditor may not designate

Article 479 of the Civil Act

Attorney Kim Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na2003 delivered on October 31, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed the fact that the total amount of 27,104,344 won was repaid until December 28, 1976 with the grant of successful bid price for the real estate owned by the non-party Maritime Trade Co., Ltd., which was offered as security for the claim of this case, and determined that the funds claimed by the plaintiff as the lawsuit had already been extinguished by the above repayment.

Therefore, according to the records, the amount of the plaintiff's credit determined by the auction court as of December 28, 1976, which was the date of the issuance of the successful bid price, is the principal KRW 77,941,887, interest KRW 27,104,34, and fire insurance premium KRW 839,628, and interest KRW 27,029, and fire insurance premium interest KRW 1,397,220, and the auction cost is KRW 107,310,108, and the amount of the successful bid price paid by the plaintiff is limited to KRW 98,723,914, and there is no evidence that the plaintiff agreed to pay the principal to the creditor from the repayment of the principal and the debtor with the above amount of the successful bid price. However, in the case of appropriation of the principal, the order of appropriation of the principal, interest, interest, and the order of appropriation of the principal cannot be applied mutatis mutandis without delay to the obligee's order of appropriation of payment.

Therefore, there was no special agreement between the parties as to the order of appropriation appropriation, and in the case of this case where the defendant, who is the debtor, asserts the plaintiff's claim for appropriation of principal, the court below's decision that the interest 27,104,344 won was paid in full prior to the above principal was just in accordance with the order of appropriation of appropriation under Article 479 of the Civil Code, and there was no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to appropriation of appropriation.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)