1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In order to continue to borrow money to the Defendant, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan contract for transfer security by means of transfer security on January 7, 2013, and entered the items in the attached Table 3 (hereinafter “instant secured items”).

(1) The Defendant provided collateral as collateral. On April 28, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the execution of the transfer for security on the ground that the principal and interest of the loan was not repaid, and without lawful evaluation procedures as prescribed by the Provisional Registration Security Act, and thereby, the Matin Industry Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Matin Industry”).

(2) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 83,082,198, which is the difference between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, after deducting the remaining principal and interest of the collateral and the repayment amount, from the adequate evaluation amount of the said security. (2) In a case where a contract to establish a security for movable property is concluded and a notarial deed accepting compulsory execution at the time of nonperformance, the mortgagee may dispose of the movable property, which is the collateral, by exercising the security right, without being based on a document of execution, or by disposing of it in a private way in accordance with the content of the agreement for the security for transfer, but can be realized by way of realizing the movable property which is the collateral, without being based on a document of execution, if the person who has created the security for transfer, fails to perform the secured obligation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da47283 delivered on September 7, 1999, etc.). In full view of the examination of the instant case, the records of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the witness B’s testimony, and the witness’s partial testimony, the Plaintiff and the Defendant within the scope of jurisdiction and the Defendant are KRW 70 million against the Plaintiff’s Defendant on January 7, 2013.