1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 17, 2014, the Plaintiff registered the ownership transfer of D forest land 661 square meters in Hanju-si on the same day, and ordered the Defendant to register the establishment of a mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 60 million on the same day.

B. On November 12, 2014, the Plaintiff made a registration of the establishment of a mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million on the E large scale 211.8 square meters and ground buildings owned by the Defendant at the time of his/her own possession.

C. On June 4, 2015, the Defendant terminated the mortgage contract on each of the said real estates (hereinafter “mortgage”) to the Plaintiff, and cancelled the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the following day.

On the other hand, around June 4, 2015, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with the lease deposit of KRW 110 million on the G, which is the mother of Nonparty F, and the first floor of the H housing in Seongbuk-gu, Changwon-gu, Changwon-si.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6 (which include a serial number).

hereinafter the same shall apply.

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

A. On July 23, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) borrowed 60 million won from the Defendant without determining interest; (b) additionally borrowed 50 million won (a) around November 2014; (c) and (d) around June 4, 2015, the Plaintiff borrowed 47.5 million won (around June 4, 2015, referring to lending 47.5 million won without dispute over the Plaintiff’s loans; (d) the Plaintiff, Nonparty F, and the Defendant assumed the obligation of KRW 110 million with respect to the Plaintiff’s loans; and (e) the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant is extinguished.

On June 24, 2015, the Defendant prepared a notarial deed for a loan for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating that no objection is raised even if a compulsory execution is conducted immediately when a notary public’s office fails to perform his/her obligation with respect to the borrowed money as of July 23, 2014, using a certificate of personal seal impression that he/she held at king.

If so, the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff, including the borrowed money on July 23, 2014, is the obligation of the plaintiff.