1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The following facts can be found in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, and Eul evidence No. 9-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

On August 11, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) determined that KRW 1.5% of interest per month for the Defendant, KRW 200,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant first loan”) was due and due on February 11, 201; and (b) determined KRW 50,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant second loan”) as the interest rate per month and due date on August 11, 201; and (c) lent each of the instant loans as KRW 50,00,000 (hereinafter “the instant second loan”).

B on August 17, 2009, in order to secure the Plaintiff’s claim for the loans Nos. 1 and 2,496 square meters of forests and fields in Gyeonggi-gu (hereinafter “the instant forest”) were established and registered as collateral for the instant forest.

B. The Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 on December 13, 2010, and KRW 50,000,00 on December 24, 2010, respectively, with the principal of the instant loan No. 1.

On the other hand, on December 14, 2010, the Defendant settled the interest rate of KRW 14,000,000 with respect to the instant loans Nos. 1 and 2 by December 10, 2010, and drafted a written statement of payment with the intent to pay KRW 8,000,000 up to December 30, 201, and the remainder of KRW 6,000 until February 30, 201 (hereinafter “instant interest settlement agreement”).

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, as to ① KRW 50,00,000 of the remaining principal of the loan No. 1 of this case, ② The principal of the loan No. 2 of this case was KRW 50,000,000, ③ The unpaid interest rate until December 10, 2010 on the loan No. 1 and 2 of this case was to be paid pursuant to the interest settlement agreement of this case, and KRW 114,000,000 in total, and KRW 50,000,000 of the remaining principal of the loan No. 1 of this case among them, as to the remaining principal of the loan No. 1 of this case, from December 11, 2010 on the date following the base date under the interest settlement agreement of this case, it is reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation of the defendant as of December 1, 2015.