1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from April 8, 2017 to September 1, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant at the request of C, and on the same day, set up a collateral security as KRW 100,000,000 with respect to D forest land owned by the Defendant, the Defendant, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 47,480,00,000.

B. On February 17, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction of real estate to Cheongju District Court E on the said real estate, and the decision on commencing auction was made on February 23, 2015.

C. From April 2016, the Plaintiff received from C a certificate of loan stating that “200,000,000 won was borrowed from the Plaintiff without molding on April 29, 2016. It shall be repaid to the Plaintiff by August 31, 2016.”

On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff withdrawn the above application for auction, and on June 30, 2016, revoked the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, and 6 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the Defendant borrowed KRW 100,00,000 from the Plaintiff on May 31, 2013, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 100,000,000, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from April 8, 2017, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, to September 1, 2017, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation to perform, until September 1, 2017, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

(A) The Plaintiff sought payment of interest or delay damages at a rate of 5% per annum from May 31, 2013 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case with respect to the above loan. However, there is no evidence to prove that the payment period and interest have been fixed at the time of the above loan. Thus, this part of the claim is without merit).

As to the defendant's argument, the defendant is against the defendant's plaintiff.