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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On June 16, 2008, the Defendant drafted a loan certificate stating that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 18 million from the Plaintiff, repaid after two years, and paid interest every month (hereinafter “the loan certificate in this case”).” to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the loan certificate in this case”).

B. On June 16, 2008, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) with respect to D, Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si, the Plaintiff’s own land, KRW 23 million with respect to the maximum debt amount of KRW 23 million, the Defendant, and the obligee C (hereinafter “mortgage”).

C. On May 23, 2011, the Defendant repaid all the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security and cancelled the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. On November 28, 2003, the plaintiff lent 12 million won to the defendant on November 28, 2003, and the defendant did not fully repay this. The plaintiff determined on June 16, 2008 the principal and interest accrued until the defendant and the defendant paid 18 million won and received the loan certificate of this case from the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above KRW 18 million, interest thereon, and delay damages.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not borrow KRW 18 million as claimed by the Plaintiff, and the instant loan certificate was prepared in relation to the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security. The Defendant did not return the above loan certificate even though the Defendant fully repaid the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security, and the Plaintiff used it to bring the instant lawsuit. 2) Even if it is acknowledged that the Defendant borrowed KRW 12 million from the Plaintiff on November 28, 2003 as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s above loan claim was extinguished by the Defendant’s repayment or prescription, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

3. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim 1.