1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 106,490,218 as well as the interest rate from November 3, 201 to the date of full payment.

Facts of recognition

On January 26, 2006, the Plaintiff leased KRW 1 billion to the Defendants on January 26, 2006 as the interest rate of KRW 1.5% and due date of payment on January 26, 2007, and received KRW 15 million as the interest rate on the day.

From February 28, 2006 to June 2, 2008, the Defendants paid a total of KRW 1.35 billion (hereinafter “instant payment”) as indicated in the “amount actually paid” in the annexed Table for Appropriation of Performance (hereinafter “instant payment”).

[Grounds] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings, the amount claimed by the plaintiff by the plaintiff to the plaintiff is preferentially appropriated for payment of interest and delay damages, and the remainder is appropriated for principal and interest, and the remainder is remainder of the leased principal of KRW 212,53,181 as of November 2, 201. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 212,53,181 and delay damages.

The Defendants asserted that, around August 2008, they confirmed that the amount repaid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff up to that time is KRW 1 billion, and agreed to appropriate the said amount to the leased principal, set the remainder of the interest liability as KRW 40 million, and thereby, pay KRW 350 million to the Plaintiff.

Since the Defendants are liable to withhold and pay interest income tax and resident tax on the Plaintiff, the payment of this case paid to the Plaintiff must be appropriated first for the repayment of the interest after deducting the amount withheld from the amount withheld.

Judgment

Article 479 of the Civil Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to the order of appropriation for performance with respect to the expenses, interest, and principal of the performance, and Article 476 of the same Act with respect to appropriation for performance does not apply mutatis mutandis. Therefore, it is deemed that there was a special agreement between the parties on appropriation for performance, or that the other party did not raise an objection without delay with respect to the unilateral designation of the party.