1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Fact that there is no dispute over the facts of recognition [based on recognition], each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (Evidence No. 4 is recognized by the testimony of the first instance court witness D. The defendant has no evidence to prove that evidence No. 4 was forged, but no evidence to prove it exists) and the purport of the whole pleadings of the first instance court witness D). The plaintiff has agreed on February 15, 2014 to lend to the defendant, ① January 5, 2014, KRW 10 million as the due date for repayment on February 15, 2014, and ② lent KRW 100 million as of April 6, 2012 to the plaintiff on January 27, 2014.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff a total of KRW 150 million and delay damages calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from November 7, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant alleged that he/she had a debt of KRW 100,000 to E on March 23, 201, but was unable to repay it at once. On April 4, 2012, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant offered KRW 600,000,000 of the ginseng distribution market value, which was cultivated in Gyeonggi-gun F, as a security for transfer, to C’s husband G, and C transferred KRW 100,000,000 to E on April 6, 2012, and subrogated for the Defendant’s debt of KRW 100,000,000.

However, around October 2014, C extracted and arbitrarily brought about a total of KRW 600 million of the ginseng dissemination.

Therefore, Article 607 and Article 608 of the Civil Act provides that C is obliged to settle the remainder after deducting the principal and interest of C’s loan or indemnity bond from the above ginseng price.

B. The Defendant asserted as above on the premise that the obligee with respect to the loan amounting to KRW 100 million on April 6, 2012 is C, but the obligee as to KRW 100 million on April 6, 2012 is not C but the Plaintiff, respectively, even though it was determined as above.