1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 120,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 3, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 5, 2006, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 120 million from the Steel Agricultural Cooperative (hereinafter “FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF). The Plaintiff provided the YFFFFFFFFFFFFF (hereinafter “C”) with the land size of KRW 1108 square meters, KRW 3956 square meters, KRW 337 square meters, KRW 337 square meters, and its ground area (hereinafter “instant joint collateral property”) as joint collateral. On December 5, 2006, the registration of the establishment of the mortgage in the instant joint collateral property amounting to KRW 168 million, the maximum debt amount, KRW 100 million, was completed.

B. On December 16, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant sold the amount of KRW 120 million to the Defendant of KRW 100,000,000,000 and KRW 1100,000,000,000,000 to the Defendant, among the instant joint-mortgaged real estate, the amount of KRW 3956 square meters in Gangwon-do (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”). However, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the Defendant, instead of paying the purchase price, to repay the Plaintiff’s loan liability of KRW 120,00,000 to the Plaintiff’s agricultural cooperative that received the instant joint-mortgaged real estate as collateral, and to cancel the registration of the establishment of a neighboring joint-mortgaged real estate (hereinafter “instant sales

(1) The Plaintiff stated the facts that the sales amount of the instant sales contract was 120 million won on the date of the first pleading, and on December 14, 2016, the Defendant made a statement in the written response, which acknowledged the facts, and led to the confession on December 14, 2016. However, on the fifth date of the pleading, the Plaintiff revoked confession by stating the briefs as of March 2, 2017, stating that the sales amount was KRW 120 million, not KRW 100 million. However, there is no evidence to prove that the confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and thus, the revocation of confession is not effective).

On December 18, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant with respect to each real estate of this case, but the Defendant requested the NAF to do so on December 18, 2009.