1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 108,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 26, 2015 to October 19, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant, along with the Plaintiff’s employees C, D, loan brokerage policies, was to obtain a loan from the Plaintiff by using false charter contract and related documents.

B. On March 24, 2015, the Defendant: (a) prepared an application for loan of KRW 18 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) written an agreement on loan transaction; and (c) submitted a multi-household housing lease agreement (F and deposit KRW 150 million) under the “Seoul E-Building No. 301, the lessee,” which the Defendant is the lessee.

However, the above lease contract was prepared by falsity, and the defendant did not enter into a lease contract with F and the above house.

C. On March 26, 2015, the Plaintiff believed that the Defendant was a genuine lessee, transferred KRW 18 million to the Defendant’s account.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's employees C and D had an internal document prepared as if the loan application was made normally and served as a letter of approval to the chairperson of the plaintiff who is not aware of the circumstances.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) In the case of joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act, which causes damage to another person jointly by several persons, the joint tort is established without requiring not only a conspiracy among actors, but also a common perception. However, if the joint tort is objectively related to the joint act, it is sufficient if the joint act is jointly related, and the damage is caused by the pertinent joint act, and thus, the joint tort liability is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da2181, May 8, 2001). According to the above facts of recognition, even if the defendant did not specifically make a public offering in the above unlawful loan act, the defendant is sufficiently aware that the loan is not normal, such as submission of a lease contract under the name of the defendant, in filing an application for a loan with the plaintiff.