1. The Defendant’s KRW 46,190,789 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 26, 2011 to November 25, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 25, 2004, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract for the land outside Gyeonggi-gun Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant land”).

However, on April 24, 2005, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 650 million from the Defendant on the condition that the Plaintiff would refund KRW 950 million until April 24, 2005 due to the shortage of the purchase price, and appropriated it for the purchase price.

As a result, the plaintiff prepared and delivered a loan certificate of KRW 950 million to the defendant.

B. On December 7, 2004, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the Plaintiff’s name with respect to the instant land, and on the same day, the registration of the establishment of the mortgage over the Defendant, the debtor, and the maximum debt amount of 1.3 billion won was completed.

C. The Plaintiff did not repay KRW 950 million until the due date for payment promised by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant filed an application for voluntary auction on July 18, 2007 for the instant land.

On December 5, 2007, the Plaintiff paid KRW 70 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid KRW 20 million among them to the auction expense, and KRW 50 million was appropriated for interest and withdrawn the application for auction.

As the Plaintiff was unable to repay the borrowed money continuously, the Defendant applied for a voluntary auction on the instant land again on July 7, 2008.

On December 29, 2008, the plaintiff paid 100 million won to the defendant, and the defendant withdrawn the application for voluntary auction.

E. Ultimately, the Plaintiff failed to repay the borrowed amount, and the Defendant applied for a voluntary auction on May 26, 2009 again on the instant land.

On April 25, 2011, the date of distribution of the auction procedure, the defendant received a dividend of KRW 1,131,451,061.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion of alteration of the loan certificate and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that D's loan certificate prepared by the plaintiff without the plaintiff's consent stated D's payment of interest on the three-month basis when D's above amount cannot be repaid by April 24, 2005. The agreed interest rate is invalid for the plaintiff.