A. On June 21, 2012, Nonparty Cable Savings Bank (hereinafter “Bable Savings Bank”) concluded a loan agreement with Defendant A on June 21, 2012.

According to this, the above bank loans to the above defendant at 15.9% of the loan interest rate of 72 million won and at 25% of the overdue interest rate, and the above defendant decided to repay the above loan by equal repayment of principal and interest until June 21, 2016.

In addition, Defendant B guaranteed Defendant A’s above loan obligations.

B. The above loan claims were later transferred to the Gisung Savings Bank prior to the merger.

Before the above merger, banks were merged with the Plaintiff on September 2, 2014.

C. From January 21, 2014, Defendant A lost the benefit of time due to delinquency in the repayment of the above loan.

The loan balance calculated as of March 26, 2015 is the principal amount of KRW 49,761,063, total of principal and interest of KRW 63,043,921.

【Defendant A: Fact that there is no dispute, entries in Gap’s evidence 1 through 3 (including the virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings: The fact that there is no dispute

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, Defendant A is the obligor under the above loan contract, and Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 63,043,921 and KRW 49,761,063, which is the principal, to the Plaintiff, who jointly and severally acquired the status of assignee of the above loan claim as joint and several surety, the delay damages calculated at the rate of 25% per annum under the agreement from March 27, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the above calculation base date.

B. As to this, Defendant A asserted that, at the time, the actual loan obligor was Defendant B, and himself was entered in the loan agreement formally by agreement with the Fable Savings Bank, it is only the debtor under the loan agreement. Thus, the above loan agreement declaration constitutes a false declaration of agreement and thus null and void.

However, the statement No. 1 alone is insufficient to support the above argument of Defendant A, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.