1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 119,786,144.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

Facts of recognition

On July 24, 2012, the Plaintiff leased KRW 1,050,000 to the Defendant until July 24, 2013 due date, the interest rate of KRW 9% per annum, and the overdue interest rate of KRW 1,050,00 to the Defendant according to the terms and conditions (hereinafter “instant loan”).

On July 23, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the Seoul Central District Court No. 169190, the maximum debt amount of which is KRW 1,265,000,000, on the attached list real estate owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

The Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 1,179,029,001 on May 13, 2014 in the distribution procedure for the F compulsory auction case of the Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter “instant auction”) on the instant real estate.

As of May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant as of May 13, 2014 against KRW 9,729,283, such as the expenses required for the provisional attachment procedure, the expenses required for the payment order, the expenses required for the appointment of an attorney, and KRW 1,050,000,000, the balance of the principal of the instant loan, and KRW 244,808,217, and the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant at the time is KRW 60,718.

The Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 5,661,637 on May 27, 2014 in the distribution procedure of the instant auction.

[Ground for recognition] The facts that there is no dispute between the parties, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, and the overall purport of the arguments, based on the facts of recognition as above, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount that was distributed from the auction of this case on May 13, 2014 to be appropriated for payment in the order of statutory appropriation of performance, the amount that was appropriated to offset the plaintiff's deposit repayment obligation against the defendant, and the amount that was appropriated to payment in the order of statutory appropriation of performance, except the amount distributed on May 27, 2014 and appropriated to payment in accordance with the order of appropriation of performance.

In regard to the judgment on the defendant's defense, the defendant set up a defense that the defendant had fully repaid the debt of the loan of this case due to the auction of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.