1. The portion exceeding KRW 40,565,696 out of the obligations based on the loan certificate issued by the Plaintiff on March 11, 2011 against the Defendant exceeds KRW 40,56.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 16, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased C & 661 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 8, 2008, and thereafter, on the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage with respect to the instant land with the maximum debt amount of KRW 120 million and received a secured loan from the KOpo-si, Korea Bank.

After that, around October 2008, the first class neighborhood living facilities (152.40m2, 28.98m2) of the second class of the second class of the general steel structure sloping roof, and the first class neighborhood living facilities (108m2, 152.40m2, 28.98m2) of the general steel structure 1st class and the second class 1st class of the sloping roof (108m2, 2008m2) were newly constructed on the instant land for logistics warehouses and offices (hereinafter “the instant building”), and there was a soundproof wholesale business with the trade name “D.”

The loan amount: The amount of daily0 million Won is the amount equivalent to 50% share of the value of land and building in Kimpo-si in Gyeonggi-do (the current market price as of January 31, 201) and the right of creditors to share 50% of the common investment is set up and agreed as follows:

Article 1 The principal shall be repaid until January 31, 2014.

Article 2 No interest shall be paid for principal with respect to the amount of 50% share of the investment.

Article 3 The above borrowed amount shall be calculated by reflecting the market price as of January 31, 201, and the amount of 50% shares shall be increased or decreased by reflecting the market price at the time of repayment of the debt.

If the property is not repaid by the due date under Article 4, an objection shall not be raised immediately even at the auction of the mortgaged property.

B. When the Defendant discontinues to assist the Plaintiff’s above business for several years (whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in a partnership business relationship within the meaning of Article 703 of the Civil Act, and how much the Defendant invested in property or labor is unclear, but not impeding the judgment on the issues of this case). On January 31, 201, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant on January 31, 201 as “a certificate of rent” with the content indicated below as “the instant agreement.”