1. The Defendant’s loan against the Plaintiff taken over from the Co., Ltd. on January 1, 2017, 19.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2013, the Sejong Savings Bank made a loan with the Plaintiff as the name of the lender at KRW 20 million at interest rate of KRW 39% per annum and 60 months during the lending period.

The above loan was deposited in the Nong Bank account (Account Number: B) in the name of the plaintiff.

B. The claim for the loan from the above loan was transferred to the Defendant on January 1, 2017 through the Kloak Capital Loan Co., Ltd. (the balance of the loan at the time of transfer KRW 19,99,91) and the above credit transfer was notified to the Plaintiff around that time.

C. At the time of the above loan, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with C on the ground that the Plaintiff prepared the documents related to the loan by stealing the Plaintiff’s name, and on this basis, the Daegu District Public Prosecutor’s Office Kimcheon-si rendered the disposition of suspending prosecution on March 21, 2016, and at present, C cannot find any location.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 5, 6 through 8, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion-raising C obtained a loan from the Sejong Savings Bank by stealing the Plaintiff’s name, and the claim for the loan was transferred to the Defendant on January 1, 2017 through the Boloby Capital Loan Co., Ltd., which was transferred on January 1, 2017. The Plaintiff is not a debtor of the above loan claim, and thus, sought confirmation of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s argument-type savings bank had gone through a personal verification procedure at the time of lending the Plaintiff as the name of the lender, and the fact that the money was deposited by the passbook in the name of the Plaintiff, etc., the above loan was made according to the Plaintiff’s genuine intent, and cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

3. In the lawsuit to confirm the existence of the debt of this case, the defendant who asserts the existence of the debt of this case must prove the existence of the claim. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to find that the loan in the name of the plaintiff of the Sejong Savings Bank was made according to the plaintiff's intent

Rather, the above facts are examined.