1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The facts of recognition B were entrusted to C with the sale of Ecuapsing cars owned by C as a medium-sized dealer (hereinafter “instant automobiles”).

The court below entrusted the Defendant with the loan of the “serious debate”. The court below entrusted the Defendant with the Defendant’s right to reply.

On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the commission agent B to purchase the instant automobile.

On that day, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to borrow KRW 50 million as collateral, using the goods of the “small and High Debate” between the Defendant and the Defendant, through a company with which the right of redemption is to be set up.

On that day, the Plaintiff filed an application for a loan with his employee while making a telephone conversation with the Defendant, and was aware of the terms of the loan contract, and said that the instant automobile was already delivered.

The Defendant paid approximately KRW 26 million out of KRW 50 million to B through Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was established on the instant vehicle, with the payment of the remainder to B, after having done so in order to repay the secured debt under the first priority mortgage established on the instant vehicle.

B transferred 15 million won to the Plaintiff on May 20, 2015.

Article 5 of the Terms and Conditions of the Product "Sever high-end debate" stipulates that a financial company directly pays all or part of the purchase price of a motor vehicle to the seller on behalf of the debtor.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), sound, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. For the following reasons, the Plaintiff asserted that there is no obligation to return a loan to the Defendant under a loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and sought its confirmation.

The “Defendant’s trustee” forged the Plaintiff’s signature in the “application for the middle and high-speed debate” as a loan document and in the agreement.

The defendant should have paid the loan directly to the plaintiff.