2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,00,000 and its payment shall be made from November 22, 2011.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) on November 22, 201, the Defendant borrowed KRW 3,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and even if not, the Nonparty borrowed KRW 3,00,000 on behalf of the Defendant.

(2) Even if the person who was unable to receive the loan by pretending to be the Defendant, the person who was unaware of his name had the basic right of representation related to the loan, and was engaged in the transaction with the Plaintiff using various documents, etc. under the name of the Defendant, there was a justifiable reason to believe that the person who was unaware of his name was entitled to receive the loan of KRW 3,00,000 on behalf of the Defendant.

B. (1) On November 22, 2011, the Defendant drafted a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff, setting forth KRW 3,000,000 from the Plaintiff on November 21, 201 as due date, and set at 39% per annum on November 21, 2016.

(2) The loan under the above loan agreement is used for personal purposes by obtaining additional loans from the lending company in the name of the lending company without exceeding the scope delegated by the lending company or obtaining consent from the lending company using the information related to the loan, such as a copy of identification card, resident registration copy and abstract, and security card, which is delivered by the lending company. However, in preparation for the lending company’s confirmation of its intent, the lending company used the mobile phone in the name of the lending requester.

(B) B entered the Defendant’s name, resident registration number, address, loan amount, etc. in a monetary loan agreement, and submitted it to the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s name, resident registration number, address, etc. were stated in the application for the mobile phone admission and submitted to GIST.

(C) B is a similar type of crime against the Defendant and other clients, including the above crimes.