A. The facts of recognition 1) The Jeju Savings Bank (the first mutual savings bank before the alteration, the second mutual savings bank, the second mutual savings bank, the second mutual savings bank, the second mutual savings bank, and the second savings bank

(B) On November 19, 2007, B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”).

(1) On November 19, 2008, the due date for repayment of KRW 4,000,000 has been fixed and lent to 25% per annum (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

(2) The Savings Bank was declared bankrupt by Seoul Central District Court No. 201Hahap98, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee on September 7, 2012.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings]

B. The Defendant is obligated to pay as part of the principal and interest of the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,600,000 out of the loan principal as well as damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from March 18, 2009 to the date of full payment after the maturity date of the loan, as agreed upon by the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. 1) The defendant asserts that the loan contract of this case is null and void since the date, which is an affiliate of the Japanese Savings Bank, has illegally provided loans to B in order to resolve the violation of the limit on loan amount by the same person, while the loan contract of this case had already been extended in excess of the limit on loan amount from the Japanese Savings Bank to B, and thus, the defendant's joint and several liability does not occur. 2) However, even if the loan was made in violation of the limit on loan amount to the same person, there is no limitation on the validity under private law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da180760, Aug. 23, 1996). Even if there is a circumstance as alleged by the defendant, such circumstance alone alone cannot be deemed null

3) Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.