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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On June 18, 2010, the borrower, the borrower, and his agent, the Defendant’s husband, C, the Defendant’s husband, the amount of loan KRW 70 million, the interest rate of KRW 2% per month, and the loan certificate as of July 19, 2010 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

B. On June 18, 2010, regarding D Apartment 106, 207 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), which was owned by the Defendant, the creditor was completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “the registration of establishment of a neighboring apartment”) with the Plaintiff, the debtor, the Defendant, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million (the Defendant’s personal seal impression issued on June 16, 2010 was used), and on September 23, 201, the registration of establishment of a neighboring apartment was revoked due to the termination of the mortgage contract of this case.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1, 3, and 5, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On June 18, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) through the Defendant’s husband C, who was granted the power of representation from the Defendant, drafted the instant loan certificate through the Defendant’s husband C; and (b) lent KRW 70 million to the Defendant on September 23, 201; and (c) was paid KRW 60 million, which is a part of the principal and interest of the loan from the Defendant on September 23, 2011; (d) the said reimbursement amount was charged KRW 60 million from June 19, 201 to September 23, 2011, KRW 21,264,658; and (e) the principal was charged in order to KRW 31,264,658 as of September 23, 2011.

Even if the defendant did not grant C the right of loan.

Even if the Defendant indicated that the right of representation was granted to C, and there was a reason to believe that C had the right of representation against C, and that there was a reason to believe that C had the right of representation to the Plaintiff, so the expressive representation under Articles 125 and 126 of the Civil Act is constituted. Furthermore, the Defendant ratified C’s act of unauthorized Representation in the course of repaying the Plaintiff’s interest of the loan amounting to KRW 60 million.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay the remaining principal to the plaintiff 31.