2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Solomon Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Solomon Savings Bank”)

A) On March 31, 2011, the term “loan Agreement” means a loan agreement with Defendant A setting a loan rate of KRW 80,000,000, and a loan agreement between Defendant A on March 31, 201 with a maturity of KRW 80,00,00, and a overdue interest rate of KRW 40,00 per annum (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

(2) Defendant B and C jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of Defendant A under the foregoing loan agreement. (3) The instant loan agreement was concluded upon grant of the basic power of representation from Defendant A, and the Solomon Savings Bank concluded the instant loan agreement. Since the Solomon Savings Bank has justifiable grounds to believe that it has the authority to do so, the expression agency is established.

3) Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid principal and interest and damages for delay, as stated in the purport of the claim. B. 1) We examine whether the instant loan agreement was lawfully concluded.

D In light of the fact that criminal punishment was imposed on the conclusion of the instant loan agreement by stealing the name of Defendant A by stealing the name of Defendant A, it is insufficient to acknowledge the authenticity of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 merely with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2, 4 through 9, 17, and 18. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Except for the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 without formal evidence, it is difficult to view that the loan agreement of this case was concluded between the Solomon Savings Bank and the defendant A with the exception of the remaining evidence. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion on this premise is without merit.

2. We examine whether the instant loan agreement is constituted as an expression agent.

It is recognized that Defendant A granted the power of attorney to establish a passbook to Defendant A.

However, in light of the fact that it is difficult to see that Solomon Savings Bank had confirmed Defendant A’s intent at the time of entering into the instant loan agreement, it is against the conclusion of the instant loan agreement beyond D’s authority solely on the basis of the written evidence Nos. 2, 4 through 9, 17, and 18.