1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

On April 12, 2013, the Seoul Southern District Court against the defendant's plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 10, 2012, the Defendant sought a loan of KRW 170 million against the Plaintiff, and applied for a payment order as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2012 tea12210.

The grounds for the claim stated by the defendant in the payment order are as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as "first loan", "second loan", and "third loan" in the order of loans in each of the following tables. The defendant lent money to the plaintiff as follows:

On April 4, 2011, the date of repayment 1, 2010,000 won from the date of borrowing KRW 70 million on June 18, 201 to July 23, 2010, KRW 60 million on July 23, 2010, KRW 60 million on October 30, 201, which was within six months from the date of repayment. However, the Plaintiff failed to pay KRW 170 million out of the loans even after the expiration of the due date for repayment, and thus, sought the payment of the said loan.

B. In the event that the original copy of the payment order was not served due to the closure of the text, the above court referred the case to the litigation proceedings on October 11, 2012, and accordingly, the above case of applying for the payment order was implemented as the Seoul Southern District Court 2012Ga20872.

C. In the event that the duplicate of the complaint was not served on the Plaintiff on March 12, 2013 due to the lack of closure, the said court ordered the Plaintiff to serve by public notice on the Plaintiff on April 5, 2013, and concluded the pleadings on April 12, 2013, and rendered a judgment on April 12, 2013, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 170 million and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from March 28, 2013 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and on April 30, 2013, the instant judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 11-1, Eul evidence 3 (except for the case of specifying provisional numbers, each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the assertion of abuse of rights, the Plaintiff’s assertion is merely limited to the surety’s property to secure another’s property, and the actual borrower is the Plaintiff’s wife C, and the borrowed amount is KRW 170 million.