2. The defendant's argument on the defendant's assertion that C borrowed the defendant's name and entered into the loan transaction agreement of this case and used the loan, and the plaintiff also knew that C used the defendant's name, and thus, C's loan transaction agreement of this case is invalid as it constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy.

In order to establish a false agreement, there is a difference between the truth and indication of the expression of intent and an agreement between the other party as to the inconsistency. If a third party directly signs and seals as a principal debtor or joint guarantor in loan-related documents, such as a monetary loan agreement, etc., the third party itself indicates that he is the debtor of the loan for consumption, and the third party has expressed his intention to have another person use the loan under the name of the third party by avoiding the credit limit stipulated by the financial institution.

Even if the principal and interest are to be repaid at the expense of another person, barring any special circumstance, this is merely an intention to vest economic effects under a loan for consumption to another person, and the legal effect cannot be seen as an intention to vest in another person. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that there is a disagreement between the truth and indication of a third party. In a specific case, in order for a financial institution to recognize the existence of such special circumstance, the legal effect arising from the loan is actually effective between the nominal lender and the nominal lender.