1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 28,332,006 as well as the full payment with respect thereto from August 29, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 30, 2012, the Plaintiff lent 30% interest rate of KRW 50 million to C, the Defendant’s wife, without setting the due date. On July 9, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million additionally (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. On July 9, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a collateral security with the maximum debt amount of KRW 100 million, the debtor, the defendant, and the mortgagee on the D Building E in Busan Shipping Daegu (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). C.

On February 6, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant auction of real estate rent with Busan District Court Branch F, Dong Branch of the Busan District Court on the instant real estate based on the instant collateral security (hereinafter “instant dividends”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 62,292,94, which is a part of the amount of credit on August 28, 2014 (hereinafter “instant dividends”). The amount of the instant loans is KRW 28,332,06, after appropriation of the dividends in the order of interest and principal.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each number in the case of additional number), witness G testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is the debtor of the loan of this case and the person who created the right to collateral security, and the defendant asserts that the defendant is only a surety who created the right to collateral security to secure the loan of this case, and the debtor is not the debtor of the loan of this case, and thus there is no obligation to pay the loan of this case.

B. In order to secure loan claims between the plaintiff and the defendant, the court should recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent as well, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof evidence to deny the content of the contract. Thus, unless there is any counter-proof, the lender who borrowed money from the plaintiff shall be the defendant.