2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant for consumption (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the content of borrowing KRW 8 million from the Defendant at 39% per annum as interest rate (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

B. The Defendant paid 8 million won of the above loan by means of remitting it to the Korean Cit Bank account (B) in the name of the Plaintiff.

C. On the other hand, around March 2, 2012, C received from the Seoul Southern District Court the Seoul Southern District Court’s claim against the Plaintiff as the preserved bond, ordering the Plaintiff to seize and collect the claim against the Plaintiff’s deposit repayment claim as Seoul Southern District Court 2012T Bank (Seoul Southern District Court 2012TT Bank 3901. When the above loan was deposited into the above Korea CT Bank account, C collected the above loan.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff, who was not in existence under the loan agreement of this case, did not actually receive the loan from the Defendant. Thus, the loan agreement of this case was not concluded, and accordingly, did not exist any obligation under the loan agreement of this case.

As seen earlier, the fact that a loan contract for consumption was made orally between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is as follows. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the loan contract of this case, which is a legal act, was not established or did not exist. Since a loan for consumption was not a real contract, the loan contract of this case was not made under the loan for consumption, and thus, the loan contract of this case was not established or null and void.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. According to Article 6-2 (1) of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”), where a credit service provider enters into a loan agreement with his/her counterpart, the Plaintiff becomes null and void due to a violation of the Credit Business Act (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”).