Whether the person performing the obligation and the person receiving the performance agree to exclude the existing appropriation method after the completion of the payment and to re- appropriate the payment for any obligation (affirmative in principle)

Unless the interests of interested third parties, such as guarantors, etc. of the obligation extinguished by the repayment, are disturbed, the person effecting the repayment and the person accepting the repayment may enter into an agreement to exclude the existing appropriation method even after the completion of the payment and to re- appropriate the payment for any of the obligations, so long as it does not harm the interests of the third parties.

Article 476 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellant] District Housing Association and two others (Attorney Gyeong-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Sun-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Na7776, 7783 decided November 6, 2012

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a debtor bears several obligations for the same kind of obligation to the same creditor, if the party concerned does not designate the obligation to be appropriated for the repayment, it shall be legally appropriated pursuant to Article 477 of the Civil Act. In particular, according to Article 477, subparagraph 4 of the Civil Act, where the order of statutory appropriation of obligation is identical under Article 4777 of the Civil Act, it shall be appropriated for the repayment of each obligation in proportion to the amount of obligation. Thus, unlike statutory appropriation of obligation according to the above proportional appropriation of obligation, a person who claims that the above obligation is appropriated for the full amount of the obligation in order of priority in statutory appropriation of obligation shall be liable to assert and prove such fact. In this case, if the claimant did not prove that there was an agreement on the designation of appropriation of obligation or appropriation of obligation, or that the obligation was fully repaid in order of appropriation of obligation in court, it shall be appropriated in proportion to the amount of each obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 39Da384, Feb. 29, 1994, etc.).

On the other hand, as long as the interests of interested third parties such as the guarantor of the obligation extinguished by the repayment are not disturbed, the person who has received the payment and the person who has received the payment can agree to exclude the existing appropriation method and re- appropriate the payment by any method of the obligation even after the completion of the payment.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the records, (1) on May 28, 202, 202, the plaintiff 2 (the plaintiff 2) entered into the sales contract of this case with 1,132,00,00 won jointly constructed between 20 non-party 2 and 30 non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1'6'6's non-party 2'.

3. Based on the above facts, the court below found that the settlement agreement was reached that 498,572,50 won out of the 942,00,00,000 won paid as the sale price of each of the shopping districts of this case between the plaintiffs and Ledrid consulting at the time of the registration of transfer of ownership of the third shopping district of this case was reached that the sale price of this case was fully paid. However, since the settlement agreement was reached that 443,427,50 won was fully paid as the sale price of this case at the time of voluntary settlement concerning the second shopping district of this case (942,00,000-498,572,50 won) at the time of voluntary settlement concerning the second shopping district of this case, the remaining 40,511,600 won was appropriated for the sale price of this case at the time of the second shopping district of this case and the second shopping district of this case (the remaining 40,500 won was appropriated for the sale price of this case under the above 471,540,570

4. Examining the facts acknowledged by the court below in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the total amount of KRW 942,00,000,000 paid by Ledrid consulting to the plaintiffs from October 2010, was appropriated in proportion to the sales price for the whole sectioned part of the commercial building of this case, and thereafter, regarding KRW 498,572,50, among them, according to the agreement between the plaintiffs and Ledrid consulting at the time of the registration of transfer of ownership as to the third virtual building of this case, the method of appropriation was modified.

Meanwhile, at the time of voluntary mediation as to the second price, it is difficult to view that there was an agreement on the appropriation of debt between the plaintiffs and the six persons, as alleged by the plaintiffs, at the time of voluntary mediation as to the second price, but the plaintiffs and the parties who concluded the sales contract for the commercial building of this case and paid the sales price are nothing more than the purchaser of the second price, and the six persons, including the non-party 2, are merely the purchaser of the second price, and the ownership transfer registration accordingly was made by the non-party 2 and the non-party 6 on behalf of the owner of the second price. Thus, it is difficult to view that the agreement on the appropriation of debt does not have any effect as to the second price consultation, and that the second price consulting agreed to the above appropriation of debt.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which rejected the plaintiffs' assertion on the premise that there was an agreement on the appropriation of debt between the plaintiffs and Leddrid consulting as above is justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules,

5. Therefore, all appeals are 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 Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)