The method of appropriation for, and interest limitation age;

Where both principal and transplant have been repaid on the date of repayment and the debtor has made insufficient repayment to extinguish the entire obligation, it shall be appropriated in the order of appropriation (or designation) unless there is an agreement (or designation) on the order of appropriation by the parties, and where the agreement exceeds the age of restriction on transplant, the excess portion shall also be invalidated and appropriated at the prescribed interest rate under the same Act.

Articles 488, 489, and 491 of the Civil Act

Kim Sang-deok

T. T. T. T. T.

The Gwangju District Court of the first instance, the Gwangju High Court of the second instance, the Gwangju High Court of the second instance, 55 Civil Code215 delivered on January 7, 1956

The final appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1 is erroneous in the interpretation of the law, that is, there is an error in the judgment of the court below in the misapprehension of the law, that is, the fact that the Defendant’s act is based on the so-called “the fact that the Defendant’s act is recognized as bearing the guaranteed obligation, and the facts alleged by the parties belong to the legal kind of agreement, and thus, it is nothing more than the legal opinion of the Plaintiff’s attorney as to the fact that the Plaintiff is liable to assume the obligation. It is reasonable to interpret that the Plaintiff’s assertion as the assumption of the obligation of the Defendant is nothing more than the legal opinion of the Plaintiff’s attorney as to the fact that it is obvious after inquiry into the preceding purport of the pleading. As such, it is obvious that the Defendant’s statement among the facts in the judgment of the court below, that the Defendant did not recognize the guaranteed obligation of the Plaintiff, is nothing more than the so-called overlapping acceptance of the principal obligation of the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant’s actual statement of both parties did not coincide with the original judgment that the Defendant would pay the obligation of the Defendant to Nonparty 186.

The above ground of appeal No. 2 argues that the defendant's act of bearing the principal obligation is revoked by the declaration of intention by coercion, and the judgment of the court below that the defendant's act of bearing the principal obligation is not a declaration of intention by coercion if the defendant takes the testimony of the non-party his husband and wife's simple and the defendant's subordinate family and the defendant's subordinate family and the defendant's subordinate family and the witness's subordinate family and the witness Kim Jong-Un

However, since the cooking of evidence and fact-finding belong to the exclusive authority of the court below, they cannot be charged unless they violate the empirical or logical rules, and considering the contents of evidence established in the original judgment in light of the records, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the nature of the obligation of this case is liable to assume the obligation with the discharge, and recognized that the cause of the obligation to assume the obligation is not attributable to the plaintiff et al.'s coercion, and therefore, it cannot be found that there are defects such as

The above ground of appeal No. 3 is to be determined by the court below by expanding the facts that the parties did not assert. The plaintiff received 80,000 refund from the non-party subordinate to this case as of March 8, 4288 at short-term 4288. Thus, there is no dispute between the parties, and the plaintiff was paid the money by the agreement between the parties as of December 16, 4287, and the defendant was paid as part of the principal. The court below, from its own point of view, stated that the amount was appropriated in the order of the principal of interest in accordance with the law of appropriation, and that the agreement on transplantation of the part exceeding the transplant restriction decree is null and void, so the agreement on transplant of the part that exceeds the transplant restriction decree should be calculated in accordance with the interest rate, and thus, the plaintiff also mentioned that the amount was not claimed by the parties, and that it was also due to an incomplete hearing.

However, according to the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff asserted that 80,000 won of the theory was received with an agreement exceeding the transplant restriction age, and the defendant argued that the part of the principal of this case was paid at the time when the original defendant received the principal and interest were not established and that the principal and interest were due at the time when the principal and interest were paid. In the case where the principal and the transplant were all due and the debtor repaid the entire debts at the time when the principal and interest were due, the order of payment of the principal of the transplant principal would be appropriated in the order of the transplant principal unless there is an agreement between the parties on the order of payment of the principal. If the agreement exceeds the specified interest rate of the transplant restriction age, it is clear that 80,000 won was appropriated for transplant at the interest rate of 20,000,000 won, which is the upper limit of the transplant restriction age, and that the balance would be appropriated for part of the principal. Thus, the court below's judgment or the court below's decision did not contain any independent opinion, and it is without merit.

Justices Han-jin, Justice Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice)