1. The defendant on December 26, 2006, as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff, the Changwon District Court Branch of Jinwon District Court.

1. Regarding the establishment of the first loan and the right to collateral security

A. On December 26, 2006, the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant. On the same day, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered to the Defendant a loan certificate stating the loan amount of 5 million won, interest rate of 36%, and the due date of repayment on December 26, 2007. (2) On December 26, 2006, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on each real estate indicated in the separate sheet with the maximum debt amount of 6.5 million won, the debtor, the Plaintiff, and the mortgagee, to the Defendant on December 26, 2006.

(3) On December 27, 2006, the Defendant remitted KRW 4,850,00 to C, which introduced the Defendant at the intermediate stage, of December 27, 2006, the Defendant remitted only KRW 4,100,000 to the Plaintiff on the same day [based on recognition] evidence No. 1 (including the serial number, No. 3-2, No. 1-1, and No. 4), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, unlike the monetary loan agreement concluded on December 26, 2006 by the original defendant on December 27, 2006, the defendant lent only KRW 4.1 million to the plaintiff on December 27, 2006. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the defendant the interest of KRW 4.1 million and 36% per annum.

(However, the interest rate of 30% per annum after June 30, 2007 shall apply in accordance with the Addenda to the Interest Limitation Act, which was enforced on June 30, 2007.

The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant paid 4.85 million won after deducting 1.5 million won from the prior interest to C, and delivered 4.1 million won after deducting 7.75 million won from the name of C's introduction expenses and the cost of establishing the right to collateral security. However, the plaintiff and C asserts that this is an internal issue between C and the plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to prove that C's testimony of the witness C as if it were consistent with the defendant's argument, and that the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the right to collateral security (the testimony of the witness C, who seems to conform to the defendant's argument, is difficult to believe).