1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 399,436,298 and the amount of KRW 299,928,614 from April 3, 2013 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Korea Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Hahap2, Feb. 28, 2013) was declared bankrupt on February 28, 2013, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy;

hereinafter referred to as “Korea Savings Bank”

On May 23, 2006, the credit transaction agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant on May 23, 2006 (hereinafter “the credit transaction agreement of this case”) shall be the credit transaction agreement between the lending of general funds, the credit limit of KRW 300,000,000, the loan amount of KRW 300,000,000, the loan amount of KRW 300,000,000, interest rate of KRW 9% per annum, and the interest rate of delay delay rate of KRW 23% per annum.

(2) On April 1, 2013, the principal and interest of the instant loan (hereinafter “instant loan”) under the Defendant’s credit transaction agreement as of April 1, 2013 is KRW 399,436,298 (i.e., principal and interest of KRW 299,928,614 (hereinafter “instant loan”) and KRW 99,507,684 (i.e., principal and interest of KRW 299,928,614) and interest of KRW 9,507,684).

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

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan of this case to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

The plaintiff's assertion is justified.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant: (a) prepared and delivered the name and address column of the Credit Transaction Agreement to B and C; (b) B and C did not actually cause a loan to the Defendant; and (c) B and C opened an account in the name of the Defendant and received the instant loan from the Defendant on the basis of the fact that they received the instant Credit Transaction Agreement from the Defendant, and then disposed of the instant loan with the Defendant’s loan obligations.

The Defendant did not actually receive the instant loan under the instant credit transaction agreement, and thus, ① the instant credit transaction agreement itself was not established, and ② even if the instant credit transaction agreement is established, such agreement is null and void in violation of the validity provisions under Article 18-26 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act, and ③ fraud.