1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 23, 2016 to June 27, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff, in addition to remitting KRW 100 million to the Defendant on June 17, 2015, additionally remitted KRW 42 million to the Defendant, including KRW 10 million on October 29, 2015, KRW 15 million on October 30, 2015, KRW 30 million on October 30, 2015, and KRW 32 million on November 6, 2015.

[A 2 and B 3-2] As of June 17, 2015, the Defendant, who received the aforementioned KRW 100 million, issued and delivered the Plaintiff a certificate of KRW 100 million loan of KRW 100 million (A 1-1) with respect to the additional remittance, and the KRW 42 million loan certificate with respect to the additional remittance.

[Attachment A-2, each of the above loans is referred to as “the instant loan certificate.” In addition, on June 17, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a superficies and the registration of the creation of a superficies with respect to the registration of the creation of a mortgage on the 100 million foot, the maximum debt amount, and on November 2, 2015, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the 100 million foot, the second maximum debt amount, 42 million won, respectively.

[B] 18 to 20] Each of the above maximum debt amounts shall be equal to the defendant's 1 and the amount of the second loan accurately, and there is no difference between them.

Then, the Defendant remitted total of KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff from March 9, 2016 to March 22, 2016.

The Plaintiff appropriated the above KRW 70 million for the repayment of the above loan.

The above facts are not disputed, or are recognized to the purport of the whole pleadings, in addition to odic evidence.

Although the defendant asserts that each of the above monetary loan contracts should be "effective" as a bad declaration of intention, or that it should have been concluded as a deception between D and the plaintiff's husband E, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Although the Defendant asserts that the actual obligor of each of the above loans is not a defendant but D, it is difficult to deny the Defendant’s liability based on the loan certificate of this case even in light of the details of the loan of this case as well as the details of the loan of this case and the witness D’s legal testimony.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

Now, the plaintiff's ground for the claim of this case is examined.

The Plaintiff’s total loans 14.0 million won.