1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 27, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant who is running a credit business with the name of “C” and agreed to cover expenses, interest, and principal in the order of repayment, while setting the repayment period of KRW 350 million from the Defendant as 30 million on October 26, 2009, the interest rate of KRW 30 million on October 26, 2009, and the interest rate of arrears rate of KRW 4% per annum (48% per annum).

(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). B.

On April 27, 2009, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 339.5 million remaining after deducting the loan amount of KRW 10.5 million (= KRW 350 million x 3% per month) out of the loan amount of KRW 350 million as stipulated in the instant loan agreement (i.e., KRW 350 million).

C. On April 27, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant to secure the loan repayment obligation under the instant loan agreement (hereinafter “loan obligation”) with the Defendant, whereby the Plaintiff and the Defendant enter into a mortgage agreement with the maximum debt amounting to KRW 525 million with respect to the D, Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City building with the maximum debt amounting to KRW 174.9 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant real property”). On the same day, the Plaintiff, based on the instant real property as joint collateral, concluded a mortgage agreement with the Plaintiff, the mortgagee, the Defendant, and the maximum debt amounting to KRW 520 million.

(hereinafter the above right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) D.

After that, on October 7, 201, the Plaintiff and E (the wife of the Plaintiff) issued promissory notes in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on April 22, 2009, the date of issuance, October 15, 201, the date of payment, October 15, 201, the place of payment, and the place of payment, respectively, to secure the loan obligations of this case. On behalf of the Plaintiff and E, the Defendant entrusted a notary public with the preparation of the authentic deed of promissory notes to the Fhap legal office, and the said legal office was no objection if the Plaintiff and E delay the payment of the said notes to the holders of the said bills, even if they are subject to compulsory execution.