1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation under the loan transaction agreement of December 12, 2017 against the Defendant does not exist.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. While the Plaintiff was detained on November 9, 2017 due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and so forth, a monetary loan agreement was concluded on December 12, 2017 with the content that the Defendant borrowed KRW 15 million at a rate of 27.9% per annum from the Defendant on December 12, 2017 in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant monetary loan agreement”).

B. According to the Defendant’s examination loan made at the time of entering into the instant monetary loan agreement, the Plaintiff himself/herself entered into the instant monetary loan agreement and entered into the loan agreement with the amount of KRW 15 million as the loan.

C. At the time of the instant monetary loan loan agreement, in order to secure the above loan claims, ① the Plaintiff’s name, stating that “the Plaintiff transfers to the Defendant the claim for the return of the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million with respect to the Plaintiff’s “Seoul E Apartment and F” (Evidence 11), ② the written consent for the transfer and management contract under the Plaintiff’s name (Evidence 12), and ③ the notice of the transfer of the Plaintiff’s name (Evidence 13) was prepared and attached.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 13 evidence, each entry of Eul 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is not an agreement concluded by the Plaintiff, but a monetary loan agreement of this case is null and void since G was written and loaned by the Defendant as if it were the Plaintiff himself.

(2) At the time of entering into the instant monetary loan agreement, the Defendant performed his duty of care, such as obtaining a copy of identification card, a statement of account transaction in the principal account, and a monthly rental contract for apartments, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff shall be held liable for the expression thereof.

B. (1) According to the above facts of recognition, a monetary loan agreement of this case where a third party or G was committed as if the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff himself/herself while the Plaintiff was detained, and a third party or G borrowed KRW 15 million from the Defendant.