1. The Plaintiff’s obligation under a monetary loan agreement on August 1, 1995 between the Appointor C and the Plaintiff to the Appointor C.

1. The facts following the facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1.

On August 1, 1995, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the selected party C (hereinafter “instant monetary loan agreement”).

B. At around 199, Defendant B (Appointed) repaid the Plaintiff’s obligation pursuant to the instant monetary loan agreement to the Appointor C, and around that time, the Appointor C consented that Defendant B’s vicarious exercise of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff based on the instant monetary loan agreement, and notified the Plaintiff.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of recognition as to the claim against the Selection C, since the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Selection C pursuant to the monetary loan agreement of this case has ceased to exist due to the repayment by the Defendant (Appointed Party). As so claimed by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Selection C pursuant to the monetary loan agreement of this case does not exceed 70,000 won, and as long as there was a dispute between the Selection C and the Selection C, there is a benefit to seek confirmation.

B. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant (Appointed Party) 1 on the existence of the claim against the Plaintiff by the Defendant (Appointed Party) as to the existence of the claim against the Defendant B, the Defendant (Appointed Party) received the claim pursuant to the monetary loan agreement of this case pursuant to Article 480(1) of the Civil Act. Meanwhile, according to the evidence evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff can be found to have delivered a promissory note with the maturity of August 19, 1995 to the designated party C at the time of the monetary loan agreement of this case. According to these facts, it is reasonable to view that the maturity of the loan obligation pursuant to the monetary loan agreement of this case was August 19, 195 (see Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu32606, Jun. 26, 1990; 9. May 5, 2000).