A. A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant savings bank”) concluded a credit transaction agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with terms and conditions as follows and lent money to the Defendant.

The loan of 11% per annum 25% per June 3, 2012 June 3, 2012, 3, 5,600,000,000 annual 25% per annum 25% per annum on October 16, 2011, 16,80,000,000 annual 11% per annum 25% per annum on July 2, 2010, 30,008, 30,000,000, 30,000, 30,000, 11% per annum 23% per annum 23% per annum on June 3, 208, 208, 30, 308, 30,000, 108, 308, 308, 308, 300, 300,000, 300, 194, 31964,3638

B. The Defendant lost the benefit of time due to the Plaintiff’s failure to repay the principal and interest, which was traded under the instant agreement. On August 6, 2015, the balance of the principal and interest of the relevant loan is as follows.

C. On August 31, 2012, the Savings Bank was declared bankrupt by the Suwon District Court, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy.

(Ground for recognition) 2012Hau23. [Ground for recognition] / [Ground for recognition] / Each entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the party members do not have jurisdiction over the instant case, since the instant savings bank did not have jurisdiction over the instant case.

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments, the defendant and the savings bank of this case asserted that the contract of this case cannot be the contents of the contract of this case since the defendant did not receive an explanation of the terms and conditions of credit transaction of the mutual savings bank. However, according to the above evidence, the defendant's delivery of the above terms and conditions to the purport that it can be confirmed after hearing the explanation.