1. The plaintiff,

A. On December 25, 2014, Defendant Aju Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Aju Capital”).

1. Basic facts

A. On January 20, 2013, the Plaintiff left the U.S. and has been continuously residing in the U.S. until now, and is attending a university or a new school.

B. However, on November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant Aju Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Aju Capital”) on Oral part (hereinafter “instant installment agreement”). The loan amounting to KRW 49,00,000 is KRW 49,00 and the loan number is KRW 2, and the vehicle subject to the instant installment agreement is C Kaman.

C. At the time of the installment agreement in this case, Defendant Aju Capital collected a certificate of personal seal impression (issuance by proxy), a copy of resident registration certificate, a copy of resident registration certificate, a business registration certificate, a value-added tax base certificate, and a registration certificate under the installment agreement in this case. The remaining claims under the installment agreement in this case are KRW 5,256,674 (Criteria for Principal).

Meanwhile, on September 27, 2013, the loan transaction agreement was concluded between Defendant Jinwon Agricultural Cooperatives (hereinafter “Defendant Jinwon Agricultural Cooperatives”) and the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). The instant loan agreement was extended on September 27, 2015 by maturity on September 27, 2015.

E. At the time of the loan agreement of this case, the defendant Jinwon Agricultural Co., Ltd sought a business registration certificate, income certificate, resident registration copy, and value-added tax base certificate under the name of the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 1 to 1, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 2-1 to 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant installment agreement between the Plaintiff and the said Defendant regarding the claim against the Defendant Capital, and it is clear that the Plaintiff and the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff did not prepare or affix a seal, and each of the above applications is subject to legitimate delegation by the Plaintiff.