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. The defendant's judgment as to the main defense of this case was brought by D, which is the husband of the plaintiff, not the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not delegate his power of attorney to the plaintiff's legal representative. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.

However, according to the delegation of a lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff as of January 23, 2018 and the certificate of personal seal impression issued by the Plaintiff himself/herself, it is recognized that the Plaintiff legitimately delegated the Plaintiff's right to attorney of the lawsuit concerning the instant lawsuit to the Plaintiff's attorney. Thus, the Defendant's main defense of safety is without merit.

2. On April 6, 2011, with respect to the size of 11263 square meters, which is owned by the Plaintiff, the registration for the establishment of the mortgage of this case, which was completed on April 6, 201, against the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million, the Plaintiff, the debtor, and the mortgagee, as the Defendant.

The above land was divided into each real estate listed in the separate sheet on September 14, 201 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

On the other hand, D, the husband of the Plaintiff, delivered to the Defendant a total of KRW 80 million on April 6, 201 (20 million), August 10, 201 (10 million won for rent), and October 25, 2011 (50 million won for rent) and a total of three copies of the loan certificates that the Plaintiff is a joint debtor, and borrowed from the Defendant a total of KRW 80 million.

On May 21, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against D and the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 80 million based on the above loan certificate No. 2014Da30649, which was issued by Suwon District Court 2014Da30649, and D issued a summary order of KRW 3 million (U.S. District Court 2015Da11035) on July 15, 2015 due to the charge of forging private document forgery, etc., and the said order was issued.

8.6. The Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff was finalized on November 26, 2015. The Defendant’s dismissal judgment was rendered on the ground that “No evidence exists to prove that the Plaintiff granted the right of representation to D”, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 22 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, and Eul.