1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 31, 2003, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30,000,000 from the Defendant’s C Branch with the interest rate of KRW 30,000,000 at the rate of overdue interest and the rate of overdue interest at the market interest rate (three-month fluctuation).

(B) The Plaintiff offered the loan to high school-friendly B, and the Plaintiff paid the principal and interest of the loan by depositing money into the Plaintiff’s account. (c) The Plaintiff extended the loan amount of KRW 24,00,000 from the Defendant on March 16, 2009 (hereinafter “the loan agreement of March 16, 2009”) on December 31, 2003, when the due date for the repayment of the loan agreement of December 31, 2003 arrived but did not extend the due date, the Plaintiff paid KRW 24,00,000 on December 31, 2003 (hereinafter “the loan agreement of March 16, 2009”).

The Plaintiff repaid to the Defendant the principal and interest based on the loan agreement dated March 16, 2009, such as the date and amount stated in the attached Table of the details of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff, B, and D, at the time of the Defendant’s argument, sought a loan from the Defendant as a high school-friendly district, but the Defendant failed to obtain a loan due to bad credit standing, the Plaintiff received a loan under the Plaintiff’s name and paid the loan to B, and concluded a loan agreement on December 31, 2003.

Therefore, the loan agreement of December 31, 2003 is null and void as a false declaration of agreement.

The loan agreement of March 16, 2009 is null and void since it is a substitute exchange agreement to repay the principal and interest of the loan agreement of December 31, 2003, which is null and void as it maintains its identity with the loan agreement of December 31, 2003.

Therefore, there is no obligation under the loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on March 16, 2009, and the principal and interest of the loan that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant under the loan agreement dated March 16, 2009 should be returned as unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff’s obligation is the Plaintiff’s obligation.