The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the party to the loan agreement of this case and the legal effect

A. In light of the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence, the court shall determine whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules on the basis of the ideology of social justice and equity (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The court below’s judgment did not go beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and the facts duly determined by the

(Article 432 of the same Act). (b)

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that (1) the Plaintiff’s agreement was concluded between the first savings bank in the name of the investor and the first savings bank in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the first savings bank”) and the first savings bank (hereinafter “the second savings bank”) in accordance with the conclusion of the instant loan agreement with the Plaintiff as the lender, and (2) the instant loan agreement was concluded in order to conceal the act of raising investment funds to the non-party company by the management of the first savings bank (hereinafter “B et al.”) including B or B, and determined that the instant loan agreement was concluded in order to conceal the act of raising investment funds to the non-party company, and it is more likely that the instant loan was used as investment funds of management, such as B et al. rather than the first savings bank’s investment funds, and determined otherwise, that the instant loan agreement was not established under the premise that the actual debtor savings bank or the investor of the non-party company was the debtor savings bank.

or, as the obligee and the obligor are the same, the loan agreement of this case was terminated due to confusion.

this case. The Japanese Savings Bank shall