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

D. On May 18, 2006, C entered into a loan agreement and foreign exchange transaction agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D Bank”) on loans for general loans for loans for credit subjects, loans for a limit of 1,700,000,000 won, and loans for credit transaction as of May 18, 2007 (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) between D Bank and the Defendant and D Bank. At that time, around 15,575,000 UN (hereinafter “instant loan”). On the other hand, the following loans were implemented: (a) omitting the indication of “Japaneseization” and indicating only “N”.

The Plaintiff asserted that C was granted a loan of KRW 1,70,000,000 from D Bank in accordance with the instant loan agreement. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the entries in the evidence Nos. 15-3 through 7, C appears to have been granted a loan of KRW 15,575,000, and the said KRW 1,700,000,000 means the amount of credit limit.

According to Article 2(2) of the Loan Agreement, if a person fails to perform his/her obligation at the expiration of the credit period or loses the benefit of time under Article 7 of the General Terms and Conditions for Credit Transactions, he/she shall pay damages for delay to the balance of the credit from that time.

On May 18, 2006, the Defendant concluded a mortgage contract between D Bank and D Bank with a maximum debt amount of KRW 2,210,000,000,000 with respect to all obligations currently and future against D Bank as collateral obligations (hereinafter “instant mortgage contract”); and the Defendant’s mid-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E-gu 102 square meters and its ground buildings (the foregoing building was removed around December 3, 2010; hereinafter “instant real estate”). As to the instant mortgage contract, the maximum debt amount of KRW 2,210,000,000 and the debtor and C bank as collateral.