1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff set KRW 230,00,000 on May 24, 2010 to the Defendant as the due date on May 24, 2012; KRW 400,000,000 on May 25, 2010 to the due date on May 25, 2010; and KRW 70,000,000 on May 25, 2010 to the due date on May 25, 2012; KRW 170,000,000 on August 13, 2010 to the due date on August 13, 2013; and each interest is the interest calculated by adding a certain interest rate to the base rate on change to the due date on May 25, 2010 to the due date on May 25, 2015; and each interest rate was set at 15%, respectively.

After receiving the above money from the plaintiff, the defendant set up a right to collateral security against the plaintiff with respect to the land B and one parcel owned by the defendant.

On September 24, 2014, the Plaintiff appropriated the total amount of KRW 680,551,229, which was distributed to the Defendant’s above real estate by auction (the Daejeon District Court Branch Branch C), for the principal of the loan. Based on September 24, 2014, the Defendant’s unpaid balance is KRW 206,559,123 ( principal, KRW 31,147,630, interest KRW 175,41,493).

[Based on the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 206,559,123 won with the principal and interest as of September 24, 2014 and 31,147,630 won, which is the day following the date of the final repayment, to the day when the copy of the complaint in this case was served, from September 25, 2014 until February 4, 2015 when the copy of the complaint in this case was served, 15% per annum interest rate between the parties, and 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day until the day of full payment.

The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion was signed on August 13, 2010 on the loan document (Evidence A) at the end of the plaintiff's employee in charge of the division of documents, but in fact, he did not receive a loan of KRW 170,00,000 from the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant does not have a duty to pay the above loan and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

Judgment

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 3 and 6, the defendant borrowed on August 13, 2010, the above 170,000.