1. The request is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On January 30, 2009, the Plaintiff issued a loan certificate and a promissory note with the purport that “The Plaintiff shall pay the amount of KRW 00 million to the Defendant up to February 1, 2010, with interest free of charge until February 1, 2010: Provided, That the fact that the Plaintiff completed the establishment and registration of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) as stated in the purport that “the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) was established upon entering into a contract to establish the maximum debt amount of KRW 300 million and the right to collateral security (hereinafter “right to collateral security”) as stated in the purport that “the parties to the dispute or the principal shall be paid at interest free of charge until February 1, 2010, and shall be paid at 8

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. Although the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security was merely KRW 165 million, it was limited to KRW 300 million in preparation for a dispute with D, it asserts that the portion exceeding KRW 165 million is invalid as a false declaration of conspiracy.

However, even if the amount of No. 1 (Evidence), No. 6-1 (B) and No. 6-2 (B) are different, considering the fact that the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security in the instant case is secured up to interest, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is merely 165 million won and the excess amount is difficult to be deemed as a false declaration of conspiracy.

B. Even if the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security was KRW 255 million, the Plaintiff, who was run by the Defendant’s wife E, was obligated to pay KRW 255 million to the Defendant on the condition of suspending the Plaintiff’s re-acquisition of the real estate brokerage office operated by the Defendant from the Defendant’s wife E, and thus, the said condition was not fulfilled. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the said

However, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone agreed to pay KRW 250 million to the Plaintiff based on the condition of suspension that the Plaintiff claims as a condition of suspension.

(c) the amount stated in the B/L loan certificate No. 1 is different from the actual amount, and it is erroneous in the amount actually paid, as it falls under E’s deception.