1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 82,449,106 as well as KRW 50,00,000 from April 23, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 15, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership in his/her name with respect to C Forest land 8,868 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. On May 17, 2012, the Plaintiff registered as a credit service provider under the Act on the Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users was issued, respectively, a certificate of loan under the name of the Defendant stating “50,000,000 won of the leased principal: the Defendant and the debtor due date: August 16, 2012; and the interest rate: 2.5% per month: the certificate of loan under the name of the Defendant (Evidence 1-1; hereinafter “certificate of loan in this case”) and the certificate of loan in the name of the Defendant stating “60,00,000 won of the leased principal, and the debtor: D and due date: interest rate on August 16, 2012; and interest rate on February 5, 2012.”

C. On May 17, 2012, with respect to the instant forest land, the right to collateral security was established, which is the debtor D, the mortgagee, the Plaintiff of the right to collateral security, the maximum debt amount of 165,00,000, and E land and buildings were set up as joint collateral when they were within the ownership of D.

On May 18, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100,850,000 to D’s account, subtracting KRW 8,250,000 from the three-month interest calculated at 2.5% per month as to KRW 110,00,00, and the cost of establishing collateral mortgage, KRW 900,000, which was calculated at 2.5% per month.

E. On the other hand, with respect to the forest of this case, KRW 135,00,00 was set up on the mortgage, but the voluntary auction filed by the said mortgagee was conducted.

The Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 7,742,674 out of the proceeds of sale on April 23, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] A’s evidence 1-1 (A’s certificate of rent and appraiserF’s appraisal result), and the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established since the seal imprint affixed after the Defendant’s name stated in the loan certificate of this case is based on the Defendant’s seal imprint. Although the Defendant may know to the Defendant, the Defendant’s defense that the Defendant’s seal imprinted on the loan certificate of this case is forged, the assertion by the witness D alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove it). 1, 3-1, 4, and 5-1.