1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 8, 2009, the Defendant paid KRW 30,000,00 to the Plaintiff KRW 28,650,000,000 (hereinafter the above loan referred to as “instant loan”), excluding prior interest, etc., by setting the interest rate of KRW 2% per month and the date of payment of interest on October 7, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “instant loan”). The contract entered into for the occurrence of the instant loan is “the instant loan agreement”).

(2) On October 8, 2009, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) with regard to the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, the obligor’s claim amounting to KRW 45,00,000, out of the maximum debt amount.

B. 1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the implementation of the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the instant case as the Incheon District Court 2016Da249716 (hereinafter “the first lawsuit”).

2) On July 5, 2017, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim.

On this decision, the plaintiff filed an appeal as the Incheon District Court 2017Na60645.

3) Of the claims asserted by the Plaintiff in the appellate trial, the part related to this case is as follows. The loan agreement of this case was null and void or cancelled for the following reasons. Although it is not specified in the judgment, the Plaintiff’s purport is to seek cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage in this case upon the Plaintiff’s claim for exclusion of interference based on the Plaintiff’s real estate ownership as well as the right to collateral security in this case on the ground that the loan of this case is null and void due to the invalidity or cancellation of the loan contract of this case. A) As such, the loan of this case is determined by the highest interest rate exceeding 30%, the loan of this case is null and void pursuant to Article 103 or 104 of the Civil Act, and even

(b).