The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order for a false declaration of intention to be established, there shall be an agreement between the other party as to the disagreement and the other party. If a third party directly puts his seal and affixes his seal on loan-related documents, such as a letter of loan for consumption, etc. as the principal debtor or joint guarantor, the third party himself indicates that he is the debtor of the loan for consumption, and the third party has expressed his intention to have another person use the loan under the name of the third party by avoiding the credit restrictions set by the financial institution;

Even if the principal and interest are to be repaid at the expense of another person, barring any special circumstance, it is merely an intention to revert the economic effect under a loan for consumption to another person, and the legal effect cannot be deemed to belong to the other person. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that there is a disagreement with the intention of a third party and its indication. In a specific case, in order for a financial institution to recognize the existence of such special circumstance in a specific case, it shall be proved that the financial institution vests the borrower in the legal effect arising from the loan in question with the nominal lender and agrees or understood that the nominal lender will not bear the debt burden.

(2) On June 12, 2008, the court below held that the agreement of this case was null and void because it borrowed the Plaintiff’s name without any intention to obtain the funds for acquiring shares of the limited liability company D (hereinafter “D”) which is a special purpose company established and operated by the bank and the Plaintiff and B bank (hereinafter “B bank”) on November 29, 2007.