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 reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is as follows: (a) according to the amended table of appropriation of performance (attached Form A, 5-2, 1-8, 1-16, and 1-23 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant and B did not have paid KRW 50,000 to the Plaintiff on May 19, 2009; (b) on the other hand, the fact that the Defendant and B paid KRW 450,000 each on November 27, 2012 and February 25, 2014 is recognized, and therefore, the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment, except that the amended table of appropriation of performance in attached Form 6, 7, and 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance is replaced with the amended table of appropriation of performance).

2. As of March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the “principal” of the instant loan remains in KRW 37,000,000,00. As such, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay the Plaintiff the principal amount of the instant loan and the delayed payment damages for the remainder.

3. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the total amount of repayment by the defendant and B is insufficient to extinguish the whole amount of the plaintiff's claims, the problem of satisfaction of claims arises. In the case of KRW 3,600,000,000 during the period from December 5, 2015 to March 2, 2016, it shall be appropriated to the principal by the appropriation agreement between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the B; in the case of the remainder of payment, it is not recognized as the appropriation of agreement and the designated appropriation, it shall be appropriated to the repayment in the order of the legal appropriation stipulated in Article 479 of the Civil Act, namely, expenses, interest, and original. If the total amount of repayment by the defendant and B is appropriated for the principal and interest of the loan of this case in accordance with the method of satisfaction of claims, the principal obligation as of March 2, 2016, as stated in the attached table of satisfaction of claims as amended, shall be deemed as KRW 29,242,281, interest obligation 134,417.

As to this, the defendant asserts that he paid to the plaintiff additional amounting to KRW 1,500,000 on April 28, 2009 and KRW 500,000 on August 9, 2009. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the above argument by the defendant is justified.