2. Of the appeal costs, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

On November 201, the Plaintiff entered into a loan service consignment agreement with the Defendant, which entrusts the Defendant with the affairs related to the handling of loan products, and the Defendant’s Intervenor entered into a guarantee insurance contract with the Defendant on the basis of the foregoing loan service consignment agreement as the principal contract, and delivered the certificate to the Plaintiff.

The insured: The insurance content from November 1, 201 to October 31, 2012: the insured insured’s insurance coverage period of KRW 20,000,000: From November 1, 2011, to October 31, 2012: the Intervenor joining the Defendant, who is a policyholder, failed to meet the obligations (limited to the obligations within the insurance period) stipulated in the loan business entrustment agreement, thereby compensating the losses suffered by the Plaintiff who is the insured in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance, and upon receiving the application for the loan of KRW 20,000,00 in accordance with the above loan business entrustment agreement, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to preferentially send the loan application form to the Plaintiff, and then send the loan application form to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,00,000,00.

The Defendant’s Intervenor sent the documents related to the above loan application to the Plaintiff by mail, and the signature as stated in the “Agreement on the loan application which the Defendant first sent by facsimile” in the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s signature is as follows: (a) the seal entered in the “Agreement on the loan application which the Defendant sent by mail”; and (b) the signature entered in the “Agreement on the loan application

It was confirmed through the written appraisal in the appellate court between the plaintiff and the lender.

When the loan holder delays the repayment of the loan, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order against the loan holder (Seoul Central District Court 2012 tea62115) to pay the loan of this case.

However, on September 26, 2012, the lender had raised an objection, and the Plaintiff has ruled against the first instance court in the lawsuit on the merits.