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. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's written evidence Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to the defendant on June 16, 2010 by fixing the interest monthly payment period and June 15, 2012. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff interest calculated at the rate of 24% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate from June 16, 2010 to the date of full payment, barring any special circumstance.

2. The defendant's defense is determined by the court below. "Actually, the amount of KRW 100 million out of the above KRW 200 million is D and the remaining KRW 100 million is D. The plaintiff's loan interest of KRW 720 million, including KRW 100 million borrowed from D on December 17, 2012, including KRW 100 million borrowed from D on June 16, 2010, calculated the amount of principal and interest of KRW 720 million borrowed from June 16, 2010 as the amount of KRW 750,000,000, and the loan obligation was extinguished by payment in kind. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, but rather, according to the overall purport of the arguments and arguments set forth in the evidence Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 15, the following circumstances are revealed.

The defendant's defense shall not be accepted.

① The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “A separate claim against D is not extinguished due to the payment in substitutes, etc. of the Defendant’s assertion, and the Defendant’s obligation was not entirely repaid.”

Even if the Defendant’s confirmation of the fact that the Plaintiff prepared on August 16, 2016, accompanied by the statement of reasons for appeal (as of August 16, 2016), it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s 3 tons of unpaid coal (the amounting to KRW 750 million) was appropriated for the loan obligation of KRW 720 million against the Plaintiff, “D,” or that the Defendant was appropriated for the loan obligation of KRW 720 million against the Plaintiff.

② In light of the date of repayment (from June 4, 2010 to September 2013) and amount of loan (from June 4, 2010 to September 2013), etc., it is difficult to readily conclude that D’s loan obligations to the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s loan obligations to the Plaintiff overlap with each other.

③ Defendant himself.