1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The defendant's ground of appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for further determination as to the circumstances that the Defendant incurred on the ground that the secured debt of this case was not a loan claim of this case in the court, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Parts to be determined additionally

A. The Defendant’s assertion is not a loan claim of this case, but a loan claim of KRW 85 million which the Defendant held on November 29, 2005 against the Plaintiff, with the purport of the Defendant’s assertion.

On November 29, 2005, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 5 million out of the above KRW 85 million to secure the remainder of KRW 80 million, and set up the right to collateral with the maximum debt amount of KRW 80 million on the land, etc., Gangwon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City. On June 12, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future for the Defendant’s children to pay part of the above leased principal and interest amount of KRW 85 million.

After that, the plaintiff and the defendant calculated the total sum of the principal and interest of the above loan as KRW 100 million, and calculated the remainder of the land in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gangwon-do as KRW 40 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 24, 2008 by calculating the remainder of the land in Gangwon-do as KRW 40 million.

On August 22, 2008, the Plaintiff set up the instant right to collateral security with respect to the remainder of KRW 60 million among the above KRW 100 million. On August 2, 2008, the Plaintiff created the instant right to collateral security with respect to the Gangwon-do G, H, I, and J land. If the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security was the instant loan claim, the Defendant did not have to file a lawsuit claiming the payment of the instant loan against the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not object to the first auction of this case.