1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the appellate trial, the defendant asserts that the claim of this case cannot be complied with since he would pay the interest on the principal even though he had already repaid the entire principal and interest out of the loan obligations in the auction procedure.

However, in a case where dividends distributed at an auction to exercise a security right fall short of extinguishing all the secured claims held by the secured party, the method of statutory satisfaction of claims should be applied. As such, interest and principal shall be appropriated in the order of principal and principal pursuant to Article 479(1) of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da8506, May 16, 2003). However, as seen in the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited earlier, the amount distributed at the auction procedure of this case is insufficient to fully repay the secured claims of the limited liability company specializing in EFA 26th Asset-backed Securitization, our creditor, and therefore, in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, it is recognized that the interest and damages for delay remain as stated in the purport of the claim.

The defendant's assertion disputing this cannot be accepted.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.