1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On October 22, 2004, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 6 million from the Defendant at the maturity of one year after the maturity of one year, and at the rate of 36% per annum, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the vicinity of the instant case stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant to secure the above loan obligations.

However, until August 13, 2008, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 10,299,600,000 as the principal and interest of the loan, and all of the secured liabilities of the instant mortgage have been extinguished. As such, the Defendant should cancel the registration of establishment of the instant mortgage.

2. According to the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the plaintiff can only recognize the fact that he/she has repaid KRW 9,979,500 as stated in the attached Table of Appropriation of Obligation, and the plaintiff's assertion of repayment exceeding the above recognized amount is without merit, as there is no evidence.

However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and the Defendant conclude a monetary loan agreement (the principal amount of KRW 6,00,00, and the due date of payment of KRW 36% per annum on October 22, 2005) as alleged by the Plaintiff. If the Plaintiff and the Defendant have satisfied the above repayment amount of KRW 9,979,50 in the order of payment with interest and principal, there remains a balance of the principal of the borrowed amount which has not yet been paid as of the date of the last repayment as stated in the attached Table of Appropriation of Performance (the Interest Limitation Act was enacted and enforced until June 30, 2007, the interest rate of the agreed interest rate of KRW 36% per annum and KRW 30% per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act). Accordingly, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff extinguished all the secured obligation of the instant right, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, there is no reason for the Plaintiff’s claim.

[This case’s right to collateral security (mortgage) was not submitted with documentary evidence, such as a loan certificate as to the secured debt, and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the interest rate of a loan for consumption with 36% per annum (3% per month, and 15% per month, and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the interest rate of a loan for consumption with 15% per annum is not consistent, and 137,700 won per month paid to the Defendant per month