1. The defendant shall pay 120 million won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from June 28, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged as Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1's each statement, the purport of the entire pleadings, etc., the fact that on March 17, 2016, the plaintiff prepared a loan certificate of KRW 120 million (6% per annum for interest) from the defendant on March 17, 2016, one copy of the loan certificate of KRW 45 million (12% per annum for interest) (12% per annum for interest). The defendant can be recognized as having paid KRW 20 million on May 16, 2016, KRW 10 million on July 25, 2016, KRW 10 million on July 25, 2016, KRW 200 million on February 21, 2017, KRW 500,000 on February 3, 2017, KRW 128,008,00,000.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff and the Defendant adjusted loans to KRW 120 million and KRW 45 million, which have been extended up to the past, and shall be recognized as having settled the same with the maturity and interest rate different.

B. Accordingly, Articles 476 through 479 of the Civil Act on the calculation of the amount of the principal and interest repaid by the Defendant is a voluntary provision, and if there is an agreement between the person effecting performance and the person who is to be repaid, the effect of the appropriation of performance arises pursuant to the agreement. In the absence of such agreement, if the payment of performance is not extinguished in whole, the effect of the appropriation of performance becomes effective according to the designation of appropriation of performance under Article 476 of the Civil Act, and the supplemental effect of the appropriation of performance arises according to the order of statutory appropriation of performance

At this time, the order of statutory appropriation of performance under Article 477 of the Civil Code shall be determined at the time of offering an obligor's performance.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da71712, Nov. 26, 2015). According to such legal doctrine, there is no evidence to deem that there exists any special agreement between the original and the Defendant regarding the order of appropriation of performance, etc. in the instant case, and thus, the legal appropriation was made in the order where the Defendant’s interest of repayment, who is the debtor, became due, pursuant to Article 477 of the Civil Act

The defendant is calculated as above.