1. Regarding the principal amount of KRW 6,500,00 among the lawsuits against the Defendant of the Plaintiff A, B, and C and the lawsuits against the Defendant of the Plaintiff D.

1. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) is the executor of the new construction of the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government F and G G H apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”). In order to support the construction fund, the contractor entered into a false sales contract with the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “I”), and received a loan from the Defendant by entering into a credit transaction agreement with the Defendant in the name of the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant was well aware of the aforementioned circumstances in the above lending process.

B. Therefore, each credit transaction agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant is null and void as it constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy. Thus, there is no loan obligation as stated in attached Form 2 according to the above credit transaction agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

2. The defendant asserts to the effect that the lawsuit against the defendant of the plaintiff A, B, and C on the merits of the lawsuit against the plaintiff A, B, and C is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

On the other hand, in a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment of confirmation against the defendant in order to eliminate the plaintiff's rights or legal status in danger, anxiety and danger (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da36215, Jul. 14, 2005). In a case where there is no controversy between the parties with respect to the legal relationship and there is no apprehension, in principle, there is no benefit of confirmation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Nu476, Mar. 23, 1982). However, the Defendant did not conclude a credit transaction agreement itself with Plaintiff A and C, and voluntarily recognizes that the full amount of loans under a credit transaction agreement concluded with Plaintiff B was repaid. Accordingly, the Defendant did not have a loan obligation against the Defendant.