1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. On September 9, 2015, the Plaintiff, while borrowing money from the Defendant, prepared a receipt (Evidence 1) stating that “The Plaintiff received KRW 20,000,000 and KRW 40,000,000, respectively,” and ② “The interest rate of KRW 60,000 shall be 24% per annum, and the principal shall be paid by December 9, 2015” (Evidence 2).

On September 10, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage to the Defendant, who was the debtor, the debtor, and the mortgagee, with respect to Dai-si C Apartment 515 and 402, the maximum debt amount of KRW 90,00,000, and the establishment of a neighboring mortgage.

(hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”). On May 19, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 60,000,000 per annum from December 10, 2015 to the delivery date of the authentic copy of the payment order, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment, with the Seoul Central District Court 2016Da23838, and the Defendant filed an application for the payment order with the Plaintiff for the payment order on June 7, 2016. The said court rejected the application for the above payment order on the ground that the Plaintiff filed an objection against the above decision and the Defendant did not comply with the court’s order for correction of stamps.

Meanwhile, on May 20, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for auction of real estate based on the instant right to collateral security with the amount of KRW 60,000,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from May 20, 2016 to May 20, 2016, and withdrawn the said application for auction upon receiving KRW 70,80,000 from the Plaintiff on July 28, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the court's significant facts, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was as follows: (a) the Plaintiff received only KRW 51,00,000 after deducting KRW 9,00,000 from the Defendant through E, a loan broker, as a fee and a prior interest, from KRW 60,00,00 at the time of the instant loan; and (b) the principal of the loan is the principal.