1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s obligation of KRW 130 million to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) does not exist.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. Nine persons including the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s husband’s obligation of loans at the time when the Plaintiff’s husband C received a loan from a financial institution, and C did not repay the loan, thereby making the said loan by subrogation.

B. On March 20, 2002, which was around the time when the Defendant, etc. subrogated for the above loan obligation, the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate with a purport to pay KRW 130 million to the Defendant, etc. up to December 31, 2003 (hereinafter “instant claim”). On April 13, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with regard to each real estate listed in the separate sheet as collateral for the instant claim on April 13, 2002.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 through 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the above loan certificate is invalid since the defendant et al. prepared a certificate of loan by estimating the estimated amount of the subrogated amount prior to the subrogated amount of C's obligation, and then agreed to prepare a new certificate of loan after the confirmation of the amount of subrogated amount becomes final and conclusive. Thus, the above loan certificate is not valid after the confirmation of the amount of subrogated amount. The above assertion is without merit. 2) The plaintiff asserted that the defendant et al. subrogated for the loan obligation of 130 million won, and the defendant et al., to prepare a certificate of loan by subrogation, and therefore, it is necessary to cancel it as it constitutes deception or mistake.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and the above assertion is without merit.

3. The Plaintiff agreed not to seize C’s wage claims, etc. when the Defendant prepared a loan certificate, and prepared a loan certificate. The Defendant agreed to do so.