1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

This case is about D's auction of real estate in the Jeonju District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 30, 2010, the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of borrowing to the Defendant that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 70 million from the Defendant on a monthly basis and on October 30, 2010, KRW 63.655 million on the same day.”

B. From August 30, 2010 to July 27, 2012, the Plaintiff repaid an aggregate of KRW 66,550,000,00 as indicated in the attached Table of Appropriation of Performance.

C. The Defendant filed an application for the auction of real estate rent with D with the Jeonju District Court for the auction of real estate owned by E (hereinafter “instant real estate”) offered as security for loan claims against the Plaintiff. In the above auction procedure, the Defendant submitted a claim statement of the total amount of KRW 84,738,356 (= principal amount of KRW 35 million KRW 49,738,356).

On April 26, 2017, a court of execution prepared a distribution schedule that distributes all the remaining KRW 52,807,214 to the defendant (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) after deducting the execution cost from the sales price of KRW 55 million.

Accordingly, on April 26, 2017, the Plaintiff stated an objection to the distribution of KRW 11 million out of the Defendant’s dividend amount, and filed the instant lawsuit on May 2, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In full view of the facts acknowledged as above, the Defendant’s principal amount of the loan 1) and the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s monetary loan agreement with the effect that on July 30, 2010, the Plaintiff will lend KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff at 3% per month interest (hereinafter “instant monetary loan agreement”).

The fact that the Defendant concluded a loan for consumption on the same day. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant paid the money to the Plaintiff in excess of the above 63.65 million won under the said loan for consumption.