A. On March 2, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with Nonparty B with each of the lending limit of KRW 30,000,000, the lending period from March 2, 2005 to March 2, 2008 (36 months), the lending account C (hereinafter “the loan account in this case”), the interest rate of KRW 11 per annum, and the delayed payment rate of KRW 18 percent per annum.

(B) The loan agreement of this case is a way to lend money from time to time within the lending limit through the loan account of this case (hereinafter “the loan agreement of this case”).

On the other hand, Defendant and D signed and sealed the loan transaction agreement (Evidence A No. 1) as a joint and several surety for the instant loan agreement on the same day.

C. The loan period of the instant loan agreement was extended several times, and the final maturity date for repayment was March 2, 2017. However, due to interest in arrears, B lost the benefit of July 30, 2015, and the total amount of the loan that B performed through the instant loan account was KRW 30,000,000.

On the other hand, the balance of the loan in this case as of December 30, 2016 is the principal amount of KRW 25,596,187.

【In the absence of any dispute, Gap’s certificate No. 1 (a loan transaction agreement, defendant’s defense that this document was forged, but the authenticity of the whole document is presumed to have been established due to the lack of dispute over the defendant’s seal imprint portion, and there is no evidence to reverse the above presumption and to prove it as seen in the following paragraph 3), Gap’s certificate Nos. 2 through 4, and 9 (including a serial number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid principal of the loan agreement of this case 25,596,187 won and damages for delay at the rate of 18% per annum, which is the interest rate for delay, from December 31, 2016 to the date of full payment.

3. The defendant's argument is that the loan transaction agreement of this case is forged, and otherwise, the loan agreement is concluded with the plaintiff.