1. The Defendant’s KRW 119,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 5, 2013 to April 24, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant’s husband, the Defendant’s husband, offered D apartment 213 Dong Dong 1802 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on the land outside Yongsan-gu Seoul and seven lots (hereinafter “instant apartment”), which is the Defendant’s ownership, as security, and received money from the Defendant on June 11, 2010, and received a certificate of personal seal impression for personal issuance from the Defendant.

B. On June 15, 2010, B, under the premise that a female under the above name is the Defendant, who pretends to be named in the name of the Defendant by submitting the Defendant’s certificate of the personal seal impression, seal imprint, and a copy of the resident registration certificate, etc., the Plaintiff entered the Defendant’s name in a credit transaction agreement (the debtor, the Defendant, the Defendant, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 938 million) and the mortgage agreement on the apartment of the instant apartment (the collateral security agreement), and signed the Defendant’s seal impression and affixed the Defendant’s seal impression thereto, and obtained a loan of KRW 670 million from the Gyeonggi Savings Bank (hereinafter “the instant loan”). According to the said mortgage agreement, on June 15, 2010, the registration of the establishment of the mortgage in the name of the Gyeonggi Savings Bank, whose maximum debt amount is KRW 938 million,000,0000,000 won, was completed.

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Gyeonggi District Court (Seoul Western District Court 201Gadan8914) against the Gyeonggi Savings Bank seeking the cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the Gyeonggi Savings Bank on the apartment of this case, and the above court rendered a judgment that the Gyeonggi Savings Bank will implement the registration procedure of cancellation of the above neighboring establishment registration on the ground that the above loan transaction agreement and the mortgage transaction agreement were forged by women with B and the above establishment registration of a mortgage was null and void. The above judgment is each subject to the appeal by the Gyeonggi District Court (Seoul Western District Court 2012Na4774) and the appeal (Supreme Court 2013Da39628).