1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 16, 2010, D, the Plaintiff’s father, prepared a loan certificate with F, the Defendant’s president, as follows. On the loan certificate, C, the Defendant’s wife, as the borrower, F, and the Defendant’s wife, E, and the mother, respectively, as the joint and several surety (hereinafter “the instant claim or the instant obligation”). The Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s father, as the Defendant’s principal, borrowed the above amount of KRW 35 million at a fixed rate of KRW 30% per month.

The due date shall be March 20, 201.

The security of JJ deposit (C and 20 million won of lease deposit) shall be secured when the loan is created as security.

(hereinafter omitted)

B. After receipt of the instant payment order against C, etc. on June 1, 2012, “C, E, F, and G shall jointly and severally pay D 35 million won and delayed damages calculated at the rate of 30% per annum from January 16, 2012 to the date of complete payment” (this Court Decision 2012 tea 1695), and the said payment order was finalized on June 23, 2012.

(c)

D) On July 18, 2012, Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) completed the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security (the maximum amount of KRW 40 million) with respect to H apartment I (hereinafter “instant apartment”), but thereafter, a voluntary auction procedure based on the priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority right was initiated regarding the apartment, and the Defendant acquired the ownership, and the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security (D) was cancelled.

(d)

On March 8, 2016, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”). Meanwhile, on March 7, 2016, the Defendant drafted a loan certificate (No. 5, hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) with the following content as follows.

Since the defendant recognizes the seal imprint portion, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established (the defendant's seal is the chief of the certified judicial scrivener office.