1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of premise;

A. The defendant is the business registration name of the used vehicle trading company D, and E is the actual operator of D due to the defendant's fraud, and the plaintiff is the three villages of E.

B. The loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) signed on December 4, 2013 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) is “the loan amount of KRW 21,00,000,000, and the debtor B.” The loan certificate contains the seal of “D’s seal” and “D’s representative seal.”

C. Meanwhile, on June 13, 2014, the consignment certificate under the name of E (hereinafter “instant consignment certificate”) was entrusted with the vehicle (F) for the purpose of vehicle sale on the other hand, and on the other hand, the vehicle is to be returned if the sale was not made.

'The letter is written.'

[Reasons for Recognition] : Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 5 evidence, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) The Plaintiff claims the return of the loan amounting to KRW 21,00,000 and the agreed party (the additional part in the trial) and damages for delay (the extended from the trial) on the basis of the name lender’s liability on the basis of the premise that a monetary loan contract exists between the Defendant and the original Defendant, or on the basis that the Defendant is the name of business operator D.

Luxembourg First of all, there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the loan certificate (Evidence A1) of the Plaintiff’s argument between the original Defendant and the original Defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the loan certificate of this case (i.e., the above loan certificate’s seal is not a seal used by D, according to the witness E’s testimony). This cannot be used as evidence of the contract for a loan for consumption of money in the Plaintiff’s assertion, and as a result of the statement of No. 4 or the reply of the order to submit financial transaction information at the trial, it is insufficient to deem that the above loan contract of the Plaintiff’s assertion was concluded, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise,

(E) According to the testimony of the Plaintiff, borrowing KRW 20,00,000 from the Plaintiff seems to be E).