1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit, and appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the part of the judgment of the first instance except for the supplement of judgment as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, the court's explanation as to this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplement of judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination 1) assertion (1) had sufficient means to lend the Defendant as stated in the first loan certificate. ② The second loan certificate and the third loan certificate are separate. ③ Unlike the third loan certificate with 18%, the agreed interest rate is 24%. 2) The above argument 1 is examined as to the above argument 1. It is recognized that the Plaintiff lent the Defendant as stated in the first loan certificate in the first loan certificate. In addition to the evidence in the first instance trial, the Plaintiff submitted the evidence of Nos. 33 through 42 (the Plaintiff submitted the evidence of No. 1 to 10) additionally submitted by this court, but puts a mark in accordance with the party’s status.

In addition, each description is insufficient even if there is a lending event as stated in the first loan certificate, the first loan certificate is indicated as “C” rather than the Plaintiff. Even if C considers the Plaintiff’s husband, the Plaintiff’s claim for loans based on the first loan certificate does not have any assertion as to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the right to claim loans based on the first loan certificate in the instant case where there is no proof of the Plaintiff’s acquisition by transfer of the Plaintiff’s right to claim loans based on the first loan certificate is without merit.)

In the first instance trial on the preparation of the third loan certificate, the Plaintiff asserted that the third loan certificate was re-written in accordance with the proposal of a certified judicial scrivener in the process of establishing the mortgage of this case in order to secure loan claims based on the second loan certificate.

In addition, the plaintiff argued that the third loan is related to the sum of interest on the first and the second loan.

However, the plaintiff's status at the first instance court.