1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. On January 24, 2014, upon introduction of C, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan contract with the Defendant on a fixed period of KRW 30,000,000 for loans, and on March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a cash loan contract with the Defendant’s agent, and then prepared and issued a cashier’s check with a face value of KRW 26,00,000,000, which deducts the Defendant’s agent’s interest of KRW 4,000 for loans.

Even if the defendant is not recognized to have entered into a monetary loan loan contract with the plaintiff, the defendant recognizes the fact that the defendant delegates C with the loan from the first financial right to borrow money, and C has entered into the above monetary loan contract on behalf of the defendant with a certificate of personal seal impression, certificate of personal seal impression, resident registration certificate, abstract of resident registration, identification certificate, etc. issued directly by the defendant and entered into the above monetary loan contract on behalf of the defendant. Since there is a justifiable reason for believing C to have the right of representation, the plaintiff is liable

Of advance interest of KRW 4,00,000, the amount exceeding 30% per annum, which is the highest interest rate prescribed by the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014) (amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014); KRW 2,700,000, the principal of the Plaintiff’s loan was appropriated for KRW 30,000,000, and there was a balance between the Plaintiff’s loan principal and KRW 27,300,000. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan principal amount

2. According to the evidence No. 3 of the judgment, it is merely a document stating the plaintiff's assertion that Gap evidence No. 3 was forged and Eul's evidence No. 10 is merely a document stating the plaintiff's assertion. It is difficult to support that the defendant entered into a monetary loan contract. Since there is no evidence to support that the defendant directly entered into a monetary loan contract as otherwise asserted by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant directly entered into a monetary loan contract cannot be accepted.

In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 3 and 8, C is the defendant's representative and the defendant was issued at the time of borrowing money from the plaintiff.