Thus, and first of all, the plaintiff's understanding of the nature of the loan and the risks therein is found in the plaintiff's testimony regarding a previous loan taken by the couple - the mortgage from Bank Leumi. With regard to this mortgage, the plaintiff remembered the circumstances of her signature, including that she explicitly testified that when she took the loan - for which the apartment was the subject of the hearing - she was explained by Bank Leumi the nature of the collateral and its risks. Thus, on page 106, lines 20-23, the plaintiff testified:
"Adv. Giller: But how does it happen in the bank, ma'am? You come to the bank to sign mortgage documents, I happened to sign mortgage documents not long ago, 200 pages, how does this happen at the bank? When you were at Bank Leumi,
The witness, Mrs. Feldman: They sit down with you and explain to you and then sign."
(See similarly her testimony on page 71, lines 16-19)
I note that when the plaintiff was asked whether she knew that even if she had not met the mortgage repayment to Bank Leumi, the bank could have evicted her from her residential apartment and realized it, she ruled out this possibility and claimed that in circumstances in which she would not have met the current repayments, she would have absorbed excess interest and only if she wished to sell her apartment, would she have been forced to return the balance of the mortgage settlement to the bank. However, these last claims of the plaintiff have not been proven, and moreover, they contradict the essence of the mortgage guarantee - the purpose of which is the possibility of realizing the apartment, in the event of a breach of the obligation to repay the loan. In this context, it should be emphasized that the plaintiff chose not to present to the court the mortgage documents of Bank Leumi, in order to support her arguments that this is ostensibly a mortgage whose terms are unique as claimed by the plaintiff, and accordingly it is not possible to realize the lien on the apartment by way of selling it and evicting the plaintiff from it. This omission of the plaintiff shows an evidentiary presumption against her version, and therefore, it is only that the terms of the mortgage to Bank Leumi were those customary in the market or similar to those set by the defendant.