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

A. The Plaintiff created, on March 22, 2013, the right to collateral security (1) up to KRW 130,000,000,000,000,000 against the Defendant, which was owned by the Plaintiff, and KRW 65,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 owned by the Plaintiff, and KRW 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

B. On May 9, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) drafted an agreement on the loan of self-reliance deposit entered into with the Defendant on the loan limit amounting to KRW 30 million; (b) May 2014; (c) May 5, 2016; and (d) May 2016; and (d) May 20830, which was received on May 12, 2014, on the ground that the debtor of the right to collateral security No. 2, which was established on the real estate in the name of the Plaintiff, was the Plaintiff on May 9, 2014 on the ground of “contract Acceptance on May 9, 2014; and (d) the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security No. 20831, May 9, 2014, respectively, was changed to KRW 39 million on the ground that “a modified agreement on May 9, 2014.”

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 3 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment that although the defendant did not intend to grant a new loan to the plaintiff to his husband C, the plaintiff deceivings the plaintiff to provide a loan of KRW 60 million to the plaintiff for the recovery of the loan to his husband C, and let the plaintiff prepare the loan agreement of this case. The plaintiff committed a tort by changing the debtor of the right to collateral security (mortgage 2) to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant should pay KRW 30 million to the plaintiff as mental compensation.

In this case, the Defendant, by deceiving the Plaintiff, had the Plaintiff prepare the loan agreement of this case.

Since there is no evidence to prove that the debtor of the right to collateral security was changed to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.