1. The Plaintiff’s obligation based on a loan agreement concluded on January 8, 2019 against the Defendant is KRW 3,049,90 and the Plaintiff’s obligation on January 8, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C, the husband of the Plaintiff, filed an application with the Plaintiff for the commencement of limited guardianship with the Suwon District Court Decision 2017Ra3277.

On February 23, 2018, the above court accepted the above application and rendered a judgment on February 23, 2018, stating that “A shall commence limited guardianship against the Plaintiff, appoint C as the Plaintiff’s limited guardian, and the Plaintiff shall obtain the consent of the limited guardian when borrowing or lending money.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on March 10, 2018.

B. On March 12, 2018, the registration of the commencement of limited guardianship and the appointment of a limited guardian with respect to the Plaintiff was completed following the above adjudication.

C. On January 8, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant on the terms of lending of KRW 11 million and interest rate of KRW 9.61 per annum (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) and received a loan from the Defendant on the same day.

On March 11, 2019, C, a limited guardian, sent a content-certified mail to the Defendant that the instant loan agreement was revoked without the consent of the limited guardian, and around that time, the content-certified mail reached the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant loan contract was lawfully revoked by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to revoke the Plaintiff’s limited guardian.

Meanwhile, pursuant to the proviso of Article 141 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff is liable to repay the profits earned under the loan agreement of this case to the extent of existing interests. However, the Plaintiff has no existing interest in returning the loans received under the loan agreement of this case to the Internet gambling.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation against the Defendant that there was no obligation under the instant loan agreement, and that there was no obligation under the instant loan agreement.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that of the instant loan agreement.