1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is to be determined in addition to the following Paragraph 2 as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had repeatedly emphasized or newly claimed at the trial, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where “ September 19, 2016” in Part 5 of Part 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to be “ September 19, 2006.” Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the portion of the disposition of this case regarding F of F of F of F of the disposition of this case is unfair since the Plaintiff agreed to terminate the claims and obligations on S jointly and severally liable and on the loan certificate, because the dividend received through the auction procedure for the voluntary auction on real estate owned by the obligor F is part of the principal, not interest, but the F of F of F of F of F of the death.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 8-1 through 3 and Gap evidence Nos. 13 through 18, the plaintiff loaned 25,00,000 won to debtor F on September 19, 2006 to the debtor F at the interest rate of 36% per annum (1% per annum on delay for at least three days), the 18th day per month on the date on which the principal is repaid, and the date on December 19, 2006 on the date on which the principal is repaid. In the voluntary auction of real estate established by the Changwon District Court closely supported by the Changwon District Court with regard to F real estate, the plaintiff can not claim dividends from the above court on the ground that "the principal amount of KRW 25,00,000, interest amount of KRW 29,128,767," and the plaintiff cannot claim dividends from the above court to the debtor F to the debtor F on March 23, 2011, and it cannot be recognized that the debtor was unable to receive the above debt and the money.

According to the above facts, the above KRW 24,545,476, which the plaintiff received as dividends in the auction procedure at a voluntary auction procedure, shall be in the order of appropriation for payment under Article 479 (1) of the Civil Act, unless there are special circumstances such as other agreements.