1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby admitting this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Defendants asserted that there is no conspiracy, false indication, or declaration of intention, but no false intention, 1) The Busan Savings Bank, Inc. (hereinafter “Integrative Savings Bank”).

(2) Even if the Defendants concluded each loan agreement or joint and several guarantee agreement with the Defendants, they merely concluded each loan agreement under the Defendant’s name with the intent to use the above money in the form of a mere intention to do so, and actually, the Busan Savings Bank used the loan and did not request the Defendants to return the loan. Thus, each of the loan agreement or joint and several guarantee agreement in this case asserts to the effect that the agreement or joint and several guarantee agreement in this case is null and void since the agreement or joint and several guarantee agreement in this case did not have the original intent of the loan but was concluded at the request of the Busan Savings Bank. In addition, in light of the above circumstances, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the agreement or joint and several guarantee agreement in this case was null and void by an expression of intention, not a true intention. However, it is insufficient to find that the testimony of the witness F by the Defendants and the evidence submitted by the Defendants was insufficient to the effect that the Busan Savings Bank agreed not to request the Defendant to return the loan

The truth in the expression of intention in the expression of intention refers to the idea of the voter who intends to express a specific content, and it does not mean that the presenter is true in mind (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da41528, 41535 delivered on July 16, 1993). The defendants' assertion is the same.