1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 70,507,918 as well as 20% per annum from February 5, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number), the defendant borrowed from the Industrial Bank of Korea on February 13, 2009 KRW 948,00,000 from the non-party Industrial Bank of Korea as of February 11, 2010 (hereinafter the loan agreement of this case), the Industrial Bank of Korea transferred the above loan claims to the plaintiff on March 28, 2012, and notified the defendant of such transfer on December 29, 2013, and as of December 18, 2013, the above transfer balance to the defendant was 70,507,918 won (including the principal 70,133,234 won with interest 374,684 won) and there is no counter-proof evidence otherwise.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 70,507,918 and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from February 5, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint.

2. The defendant's defense was signed and sealed on the loan agreement of this case. However, it is true that the defendant did not receive the loan of this case, and it was not possible to obtain the loan of this amount due to the provision of sufficient physical security and restriction on the loan limit of the same person, although the non-party B, one of his own punishment, obtained the loan of this amount, it was not possible to obtain the loan of this amount due to the restriction on the loan limit of the same person, the loan agreement of this case was made formally under the intention of not imposing liability as the debtor against the defendant by consultation with the Industrial Bank of Korea and understanding that the Industrial Bank of Korea was established as a formal debtor in order to avoid the above restriction, and thus, the loan agreement of this case was concluded without the defendant's intention to bear the debt, and thus, it is invalid as the agreement of this case was concluded without the

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.