1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

On April 5, 2015, the plaintiff's second discussion against the defendant is discussed.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations by the court of first instance, and each evidence submitted by the court of first instance is deemed legitimate even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning for this court's explanation is as follows, except for the addition of "the next 2. Additional Judgment" as to the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this case, and therefore, it is identical to the ground for the first instance judgment.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant was unable to formally provide sound installment financing in order to avoid the application of the Installment Transactions Act. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the automobile seller of the instant sales contract is E or F, who is an installment business operator, and the Defendant is formally carrying out the loan broker, who is, in order to avoid the application of the Installment Transactions Act, the installment financing and E or F, should be treated as one seller. As such, the above agreement on consignment of business was eventually concluded between the Defendant, a credit provider, and E or F, who is the seller, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant loan agreement, premised on the premise that he/she is the Defendant’s performance assistant, was in violation of the Defendant’s performance assistant, that the payment of 15,200,000 won to G on April 4, 2015 is in violation of the instant loan agreement.

On the other hand, the performance assistant under Article 391 of the Civil Code refers to a person who performs the act of performing the obligation under the involvement of the debtor in the performance of the obligation, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is sufficient.