1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the evidence No. 15 of the judgment No. 415 of the judgment No. 15 of the court of first instance ("No. 1 to No. 4" of the judgment No. 15 of the court of first instance ("No. 1 to No. 9"); and (b) the defendant's assertion is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following judgment is added

2. The defendant asserts that, even if the defendant's liability is recognized, the amount paid should be first appropriated for the principal, such as the interest, the principal, not the principal, as stated in the Gap evidence No. 4.

With respect to the appropriation of performance to the expenses, interest, and principal, Article 479 of the Civil Act is stipulated in the order of appropriation, and Article 476 of the same Act as to the appropriation of performance does not apply mutatis mutandis. Thus, unless there is any special agreement between the parties, the appropriation shall be made in the order of appropriation, interest, and principal, and even though the debtor and the creditor are not the debtor, the order of appropriation cannot be designated unilaterally differently from the above order of the court. However, if the other party's unilateral designation appears to have reached an implied agreement by failing to raise an objection without delay, the order of appropriation may be recognized differently from the order of appropriation.

(1) The court below held that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the appropriation of debt or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the appropriation of debt or by exceeding the legal effect that is advantageous to the court below's determination as to the appropriation of debt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da3009, Nov. 9, 1990; 97Da48562, Apr. 24, 1998; 2002Da12871, May 10, 2002; 2002Da12871, May 10, 2002).

Any person claiming that the obligation in question has been fully satisfied because of the priority order in the payment of the obligation in question in court.