1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On November 20, 2009, C extended KRW 230,000,00 from a wall agricultural cooperative as security with the amount of KRW 1,268 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real property”) prior to the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the instant right to collateral security”) to the wall agricultural cooperative, Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul, the Plaintiff owned, and set up the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the instant right to collateral security”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 280,00,000.

B. On November 30, 2009, C, the Defendant, and E obtained a loan of KRW 200,000 (additional statement of KRW 30,000,000) as collateral for the instant real estate as a partner due to a shortage of funds as a result of the lack of funds as a partner, and the Defendant and E prepared a certificate of agreement that the Defendant and E are liable for full payment and delayed payment as a lender by the due date, and additionally stated at the bottom that “the Defendant is liable for only KRW 47,50,000,000,000” at the bottom.

C. C died on August 1, 2012, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the deceased day with due care.

[Ground for recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (the defendant signed with Gap's evidence No. 5 without confirming the contents, and Gap's evidence No. 5 was written against the defendant's will and thus it cannot be used as evidence, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it)'s each statement and the whole purport of the arguments

2. Determination:

A. The judgment on the cause of the claim lent KRW 230,00,000 to the Defendant and E who borrowed the instant real estate as collateral. The Defendant agreed to assume the above obligation within the scope of KRW 47,50,000,00, and the fact that the Plaintiff inherited the deceased’s property on a personal basis is as seen earlier. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 47,50,000 and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion (1) asserts that, around April 20, 201, E repaid KRW 100,000 to the Deceased, the Defendant also extinguished the Defendant’s obligation. However, the testimony of the witness E of the first instance court corresponding thereto is not trustable, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

(2) The defendant, as well as E, I. 260.