The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The court below determined that the establishment and existence of a monetary loan relationship corresponding to the secured claim of the instant right cannot be acknowledged by the statement of the above loan certificate, in light of the following facts on the premise that there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security, after recognizing the facts as stated in its reasoning based on evidence, the loan certificate of this case (No. 2-1) cannot be used as evidence since it was forged. In addition, there is no objective evidence that the Defendant actually lent to the deceased the above loan amount of KRW 150 million or KRW 130 million as stated in the above loan certificate.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is correct, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the burden of proof of secured debt of the right to collateral security, or by misapprehending the legal principles as

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.