The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim is dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit.

A. Around July 12, 2010, around July 12, 2010, the loan transaction agreement dated July 12, 2010 (hereinafter “the loan agreement of this case”) was written between the Plaintiff (a mutual savings bank transferred to Korea Co., Ltd.) and the Defendant that the Plaintiff would lend KRW 2,50,000 to the Defendant at an interest rate of 49% per annum and the period of loan of 36 months.

B. On July 12, 2010, the Plaintiff implemented a loan of KRW 2,500,000 pursuant to the instant loan agreement.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment intervenor asserted and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor asserted that, since the Plaintiff transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor on February 16, 2015, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the above loan claims, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the principal of the above loan claims and damages for delay as stated in the claim

Therefore, the facts that the loan agreement of this case was made under the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant are as seen above, but if the purport of the entire argument is shown in the statement in the evidence No. 2 of this case, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant and the Defendant were granted a loan of KRW 2,50,000 from the Plaintiff by forging and using the loan transaction agreement of this case under the name of the Defendant without any authority around July 12, 2010. Thus, the loan transaction agreement of this case cannot be deemed as evidence since it cannot be acknowledged that the establishment of the authenticity is completed, and otherwise, unless there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendant obtained a loan of KRW 2,50,000 from the Plaintiff, the Defendant cannot be deemed as the debtor of the above loan loan, and the Plaintiff’s assertion by the succeeding intervenor cannot be viewed as without any justifiable reason.

3. As such, the claim of the plaintiff succeeding intervenor shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and it shall be accepted by the defendant's appeal and it shall be modified as set forth in paragraph 1 of the decision of the first instance