In order for a false agreement to be established, there should be an agreement with the other party as to the disagreement. If a third party directly signs and seals on loan-related documents, such as a loan-related agreement for consumption, the third party itself indicates that it is the debtor of the loan for consumption. Even if a third party has an intention to obtain a loan under the name of a third party or to repay principal and interest at the expense of another party, barring any special circumstance, it is merely an intention to vest economic effects under the loan for consumption in the name of another party, and the legal effect cannot be deemed as an intention to vest in the name of the third party. Thus, it is difficult to view that there is a disagreement between the third party's intention and its indication. (See Supreme Court Decisions 98Da17909, Sept. 4, 1998; 2006Da53290, Jun. 14, 2007; see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3290, Oct. 14, 2007).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as of July 2, 2004, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above loan contract was executed by the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 corporation's non-party 1 corporation's bank's non-party 2, who violated the above loan contract with the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's representative director at the time of the above bank's loan loan contract of this case. The above bank's loan contract was executed under the intention of not to assume the plaintiff's liability as the debtor. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above loan contract was executed by the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 300 million won loan agreement and its representative's loan receipt.

However, the court below, among the circumstances based on which the loan contract of this case was based in determining that the agreement of this case was a false representation, the loan of this case was made in bad faith without due process inside the above bank, and the loan of this case was made in the same time. The circumstances supporting the fact that the act of the non-party 2, who participated in the above loan of this case, can be an act of misappropriation against the above bank, are not appropriate as the grounds for denying the plaintiff's contractual obligation, which is the actual borrower, by directly signing and sealing the loan contract of this case, and it is not appropriate that the non-party 2, who is the actual borrower, has paid the interest of the loan of this case, as long as it is only the common circumstances of the loan of this case.

In addition, according to the records, the letter of commitment between the plaintiff and the non-party 2 is that "the non-party 2, on July 2, 2004, promised that the plaintiff's 300 million won borrowed from the bank be repaid with the principal and interest within the agreed period of time" (Evidence 2-2-3), and the purport of the statement is that the non-party 2, in itself, is responsible for the establishment of the loan in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's contractual obligation accordingly, on the premise that the plaintiff's contractual obligation is borne by the plaintiff (the non-party 2-2). It can be known that the person who prepared the letter of commitment is also in the name of the bank or the non-party 2, not the above bank or its representative director, and therefore, it can not be viewed that the plaintiff can not be considered as an appropriate material for establishing the debt or exempting the above bank.

Furthermore, an application for loan under the Plaintiff’s name, a credit transaction agreement, and a receipt and a certificate of employment for wage and salary income withholding, also include the Plaintiff’s employment certificate on June 23, 2004, the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression and resident registration card on July 1 of the same year, the Plaintiff’s personal credit card on July 2 of the same year, the Plaintiff’s credit integrated information inquiry statement, and the Plaintiff’s personal credit information provision and use agreement on the premise thereof, which were deposited in the bank passbook in the name of the Plaintiff on July 16:4 of the same year, and the details of the execution of the loan of this case deposited in the bank passbook in the name of the Plaintiff on July 16:4 of the same year, and the Plaintiff’s complaint (Evidence evidence 5-1) filed against Nonparty 2 on July 2, 2004. Thus, it is evident that the Plaintiff consented to the application and execution of the loan of this case after the payment of the loan of this case at least on July 2 of the same year.

As above, the court below acknowledged the above circumstances and acknowledged the above facts, or acknowledged each of the above evidence, the plaintiff was a person who was or was in office as the representative director of the non-party 4 corporation and non-party 5 corporation. The name lending of the loan of this case was made upon the request of the non-party 2, the real owner of the (trade name omitted) partnership (the largest shareholder of the above connection) partnership, and the plaintiff bank passbook of this case deposited with the loan of this case was used before and was used. The loan of this case was made in the form of a credit loan taking into account the plaintiff's position, etc. without any separate collateral. In relation to the loan of this case, the loan of this case was made in the form of a credit loan, taking into account the plaintiff's position, etc. without any separate collateral, and it was signed and sealed by the plaintiff at the date of repayment of the loan of this case, and the above bank was urged to pay the loan of this case to the plaintiff, and it is difficult to see that the plaintiff was an economic effect of the above loan of this case to the non-party 2.

Nevertheless, the court below, based on its stated reasoning, deemed the loan contract of this case null and void as it constitutes a false conspiracy. Thus, the court below erred in interpreting related documents or in misunderstanding the rules of evidence and misunderstanding the legal principles as to the verification of false conspiracy, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, without any further review as to the defendant's remaining grounds of appeal asserted on the premise that the loan contract of this case was null and void as a false conspiracy, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)