A. On June 13, 2014, Plaintiff A decided to lend money from the Defendant, and the Defendant lent the said money to D, E, F, B, and G as designated by Plaintiff A (hereinafter “instant loan obligation”) between June 13, 2014 and July 9, 2014.

B. On December 11, 2014, Plaintiff A agreed to pay KRW 15,00,000 to the Defendant up to May 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant loan for consumption”) and provided a certificate of borrowing that “Plaintiff A borrowed KRW 15,00,000 from the Defendant, and repaid the said money by May 30, 2015.”

Plaintiff

B completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) on December 15, 2014, No. 30474, which was received on December 15, 2014, on each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) in order to secure Plaintiff A’s above loan obligation.

C. On December 16, 2014, Plaintiff A paid KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant as the title of repayment of the instant loan loan obligation.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The 1 Plaintiffs’ assertion that the parties asserted was the 15,00,000 won and paid 15,000,000 won to the financial institution to which the Defendant was entitled to receive a secured loan. In addition to the loan amount of 4,000,000 won in addition to the total of 30,000,000 won, it is against the social rules to additionally demand KRW 15,00,000 under the pretext of loan brokerage, and thus, constitutes an invalid contract.

However, since the defendant continuously sought the fulfillment of the obligation under the loan for consumption contract of this case, so long as the existence of the obligation under the above contract is sought, and there is no obligation under the above loan certificate of this case.