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

A. On July 28, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the discount loan of KRW 12,200,000 from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the effect that the Plaintiff purchased an automobile pro rata to EWE and borrowed KRW 12,20,000 from the Defendant.

B. Since then, the Defendant’s employee asked the Plaintiff to verify his identity, sign and seal the loan contract of this case, and the amount of the loan contract of this case, etc., and the Plaintiff recognized that the Plaintiff himself was directly signed and sealed by the Plaintiff, and confirmed the period of installment payment of the loan contract of this case.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant paid the above loan amount to the vehicle company.

The Defendant, while proceeding with the public sale of the sphke vehicle related to the instant loan contract, provided the Plaintiff with the information on the redemption amount, etc. of the instant loan contract, and the Plaintiff expressed its intent to consent to the public sale of the said vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 8, and the purport of the whole voice and pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant loan agreement is concluded by forging a private document by deceiving the Plaintiff without being delegated by the Plaintiff’s authority to conclude the instant loan agreement, and thus, the instant loan agreement is null and void against the Plaintiff, and there is no debt relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Therefore, 1.2 million won, which the plaintiff paid to the defendant, should be returned to the defendant.

B. According to the above facts of determination, the plaintiff was not only recognized as an employee of the defendant who directly concluded the loan contract of this case, but also clearly knew the contents thereof, and it is recognized that the public auction procedure was approved without raising any objection even at the time of the public auction procedure of the above vehicle. Therefore, it is proven that the documents related to the loan of this case were forged.