1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, E&P social company (hereinafter “E&P”) extended KRW 3.6 million to the Defendant, and the Industrial Complex Loan Co., Ltd (hereinafter “A&P”) extended KRW 2 million to the Defendant respectively.

A. On May 31, 2010, A&P transferred the above loan claims to A&P loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A&P”) and on January 12, 2011, A&P notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims.

On June 21, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for the above loan from the sag Capital and the case loan, and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the claim upon delegation of the authority to notify the transfer of the claim.

As of July 30, 2014, the principal and interest of the Defendant’s obligation are as follows. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum total of KRW 15,696,707 and delay damages for the principal amount of KRW 5.6 million.

A

B. The loan contract under the name of E&P (Evidence A2) and the money loan contract under the name of E&P (Evidence A3-2) in which the defendant as the debtor or the applicant for the loan is the defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion was not prepared by the defendant, and the loan was not received.

2. We examine whether the Defendant received a loan of KRW 3.6 million from the Ethnbnb in determining the part of the claim that the Defendant received from the Ethnb.

A loan transaction agreement (Evidence A2) made in the name of the Defendant and E&P cannot be admitted as evidence, and cannot be admitted as evidence (In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the written appraisal by an appraiser B, it appears that the name and signature of the Defendant stated in the loan transaction agreement are different from the Defendant’s ordinary penology). There is no evidence to deem that the Defendant received a loan from E&P, unlike the Defendant.

The plaintiff preliminaryly, the defendant granted C the right of representation to the contracting company for the registration of the passbook and delivered documents, such as a certificate of seal imprint.