The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daejeon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The liability for damages incurred by a tort shall accrue simultaneously with the establishment of an obligation, except in extenuating circumstances;

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da3065 Decided November 25, 1994, and Supreme Court Decision 2016Da41869 Decided October 4, 2018, etc.). As regards the performance of an obligation to reimburse expenses, interest, and principal, the order of appropriation under Article 479 of the Civil Act is stipulated in the order of appropriation under Article 479 of the Civil Act, and Article 476 of the Civil Act on the application of a designated appropriation is not applicable mutatis mutandis, the parties cannot designate the order of appropriation unilaterally differently from the legal order.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Meu7262, Nov. 9, 1990). Damages for delay when an application for appropriation of performance is made pursuant to Article 479 of the Civil Act, shall be deemed as interest and appropriated first in preference to the original.

If there is an express implied agreement between the parties, it may be recognized differently from the order of statutory appropriation for payment, but the claimant is liable to prove such agreement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da49338 delivered on February 22, 1994, etc.). Where an obligor pays money to avoid compulsory execution according to a judgment of the first instance court after a provisional execution was rendered after the judgment of the first instance court was rendered, the effect of repayment does not arise as a final and conclusive effect. Thus, even if an obligor claims that he paid the above money in the appellate court, the appellate court should determine the propriety of the claim, without considering such grounds.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da26175, 16182, Oct. 8, 1993; 95Da15827, Jun. 30, 1995). 2. The lower court deducted KRW 100 million, which the Defendant paid as part of the damage compensation, from the principal amount of the damage compensation liability.

For this reason, both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed, and the compensation for damages was not determined, and the defendant first pays damages for delay recognized in the judgment of the first instance.