1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3.(a)

The defendant is against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor 3,945.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 25, 2013, the Plaintiff, who is a registered credit service provider, loaned KRW 4,000,000 to the Defendant on October 25, 2013 by setting the maturity date of payment on October 25, 2018, interest and overdue interest rate of KRW 39% per annum, and D drafted a standard loan transaction agreement stating that the Defendant’s joint and several liability for the Plaintiff is jointly and severally guaranteed.

B. On October 25, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 4,000,000 to the Defendant E account under the Defendant’s name.

C. On September 18, 2018, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor as to September 18, 2018 as above A.

On March 5, 2019, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, who was delegated with the power to notify the assignment of claims by the Plaintiff, transferred all the claims under the loan agreement stated in the claim (hereinafter “instant loan claim”), and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims by content-certified mail. D.

As of February 27, 2019, the remaining principal of the loan of this case as of February 27, 2019 is KRW 3,945,937.

E. On November 6, 2019, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor filed an application for intervention in succession with this court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff did not own the instant loan claim since it transferred the instant loan claim to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff after the judgment of the first instance was rendered. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

3. Determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. On the claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor seeking the payment of the instant loan loan claim that was acquired by the Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant is not liable for the repayment of the loan claim, since the Defendant, by misappropriation of the name of F and concluded a loan agreement with the Plaintiff and used its passbook by means of the transfer

B. The fact that judgment 1 p.m., F prepared a standard contract for loan transaction with the Defendant as the obligor and joint surety and the Defendant as the obligor and D, and the Plaintiff as the joint surety, that the Defendant borrowed four million won from the Plaintiff, does not conflict between the parties, or that the entire pleadings are purported by the aforementioned evidence.