A. On April 29, 2011, Busan Savings Bank (hereinafter “Bankruptcy Bank”) was declared bankrupt on August 16, 201, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee.

B. On February 10, 2006, the bankrupt entered into a credit transaction agreement (hereinafter “the instant credit transaction agreement”) with the Defendant on February 10, 2006 by setting the lending amount to 100,000,000 won for ordinary loans, the credit amount to 10,000,000 won for the credit period to 10,000, the agreed interest rate to 11% per annum, and the overdue interest rate to be applied in the event of overdue payment as 21% per annum, and the Defendant received the said money from the Plaintiff, and thereafter extended the lending period to February 10, 2011.

C. On February 10, 201, the expiration date of the credit period, the Defendant did not pay the above loan even after the lapse of February 10, 201. The amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is KRW 100,000,000 in the balance of the loan as of July 30, 2012 and KRW 30,810,948 in total, and KRW 130,810,948 in total.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 130,810,948 as the principal and interest of the loan and delay damages for KRW 100,000 as the principal and interest of the loan, barring special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The main point of the argument is ① the Defendant, around the other hand, knew that the credit transaction agreement of this case was extended by a false competitive indication under Article 108 of the Civil Code, which was made in the name of the Defendant for the payment of share price, or that the bankrupt was not an intention of the Defendant, and thus invalid as it constitutes a false competitive indication under the proviso of Article 107 of the Civil Code. The Plaintiff’s assertion claiming the return of shares and the return of loan simultaneously constitutes a violation of the principle of good faith and an abuse of rights, and ② the tax accounting corporation in advance owns shares of 10