1. The Defendant’s KRW 140 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from April 2, 2015 to February 11, 2016.

1. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the Plaintiff loaned 100 million won to the Defendant, who is a private village on November 24, 2010, by 2% of the interest per month, and lent 40 million won to the Defendant again on May 11, 2011, and the Defendant did not pay interest from May 2012. On September 5, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage under the name of the Plaintiff, 30,681,143 won in the said voluntary auction procedure on April 1, 2015.

The Plaintiff is deemed to have appropriated KRW 30,681,143 of the above 100 million to the interest for about three years from May 2, 2012 to April 1, 2015 for the above 100 million won. As the Plaintiff seeks, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 14,000,000 won, and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from April 2, 2015 to February 11, 2016, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. As to this, the Defendant asserts that Seoul Eastern District Court 201Gahap17548, the Plaintiff’s mother did not participate in the Plaintiff’s litigation successor, thereby having D receive 120 million won and interest from D on September 4, 2012, and repaid the loan.

According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff’s mother and the Defendant paid the same amount as the Defendant alleged. However, according to the evidence Nos. 9 through 16, the said money was paid as repayment amounting to KRW 175 million that D lent to the Defendant on November 17, 2010, and is irrelevant to the Plaintiff’s loan claim, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be acknowledged.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of a conclusion or higher.