1. A loan transaction agreement between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on June 26, 2015 (money loan contract).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a lending company registered under the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Insurance of Finance Users.

B. Around June 26, 2015, the Defendant loaned KRW 6,000,000 to B by setting the interest rate of KRW 34.9% per annum and the delayed interest rate of KRW 34.9% per annum, and the loan period contract by June 25, 2020.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). C.

Around that time, a loan guarantee contract was prepared in the name of the plaintiff that "the plaintiff is jointly and severally and severally guaranteed within the limit of KRW 8,100,000 against the defendant of this case."

Around that time, the Defendant’s employees called the Plaintiff to verify the Plaintiff’s name and resident registration number, explain the loan terms and conditions of the instant loan and the details of joint and several sureties, etc., and asked the Plaintiff whether the contract

On this issue, the plaintiff responded to the purport of recognizing this.

Accordingly, the defendant lent 6,00,000 won to B.

E. B does not redeem the balance of the loan principal amounting to KRW 4,359,376 and interest and damages for delay after March 1, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the cause of the claim;

A. On June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff in the principal lawsuit prepared a monetary loan agreement (a loan transaction agreement) by making the Defendant and B as the principal debtor, and sought confirmation that there is no guarantee obligation of the Plaintiff, since C voluntarily submitted personal information, such as the Plaintiff’s name and date of birth, to the joint and several sureties column, and received KRW 6,00,000 from the Defendant, but the joint and several sureties document in the name of the Plaintiff was forged.

B. First, the Plaintiff’s counterclaim 2015

6. 25. At the time of borrowing KRW 6,00,000 from the Defendant, the Defendant signed the joint and several surety contract upon B’s request. The Defendant confirmed whether the Plaintiff’s written signature and guarantee consent was given by telephone communications.