1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

1. The plaintiff asserted that on February 24, 201, the plaintiff entered into a used vehicle loan agreement with the defendant on a loan period of 36 months, interest rate of 27% per annum, and principal and interest equal, etc. (hereinafter "the above loan agreement of this case") and lent the above amount only KRW 10 million. The defendant asserts that he is liable to pay the plaintiff the remainder of the loan with the repayment of KRW 10 million and delay damages.

On February 24, 2011, the Defendant did not conclude the instant loan contract with the Plaintiff. The Defendant asserted that C, who was in alliance with the Defendant, conspired with D, a used car dealer, concluded the said loan contract by forging the application for loan under the name of the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot accept the Plaintiff’s request.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) On February 24, 201, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50,000,000 for used cars to the Defendant, and concluded the instant loan agreement with the Defendant to pay KRW 2,041,261 on the 25th day of each month according to the loan period of 36 months, interest rate of 27% per annum, and the equal sharing method of principal and interest, and to pay KRW 29% per annum if the principal and interest are in arrears.

(2) On March 25, 2011 and April 25, 2011, the Defendant failed to perform the obligation to pay the principal and interest of loan twice to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, on May 4, 2011, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the Defendant’s benefit under the instant loan agreement would be lost on May 11, 2011 if the Defendant did not pay the principal and interest of loan in arrears to the Defendant.

(3) The Plaintiff received, from E, a total of KRW 6 million on April 17, 2014, and KRW 10 million on April 21, 2014, as the repayment of the Defendant’s above loan obligation, from E, and appropriated it for the principal and interest of the loan.

[Recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, and the defendant asserted that the loan application under the name of the defendant was forged, but only the descriptions of Eul evidence 1 through 4 are the same.