1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation under a loan agreement with the Defendant on January 18, 2012 does not exist.

2...

1. On January 18, 2012, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of non-existence of the loan obligation and sought return of the amount paid as the principal and interest of loan to the Defendant with unjust enrichment, on the grounds that the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt by the Solomon Savings Bank (Seoul Central District Court on April 30, 2013 in the instant lawsuit, and the Defendant was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy. From the next day, the Defendant was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy).

The Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the Intervenor from the following) received a certificate of personal seal impression, identification card, and resident registration card from the Plaintiff, and confirmed the Plaintiff’s intent by telephone, and loaned KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff on January 18, 2012, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable as the obligor, and not so.

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff ratified the loan agreement by repaying the principal and interest of loan until September 10, 2012.

2. Determination

A. Whether a loan agreement has been concluded according to the Plaintiff’s intent: Whether a loan agreement was concluded on the basis of the Plaintiff’s intention, first of all, whether a loan agreement No. 2 (a) was concluded is genuine.

According to Eul evidence 2-2-6, the defendant's personal seal impression, copy of driver's license, copy of resident registration certificate, copy of resident registration certificate, and copy of the business registration certificate may be found. However, in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of Gap's witness Eul's testimony and appraiser Eul's written appraisal, the plaintiff filed a complaint against Eul, etc. on July 5, 2012, such as that Eul arbitrarily affixed the plaintiff's seal and forged the loan agreement, etc. under the plaintiff's name. On August 24, 2012, the Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office issued the disposition of suspending prosecution against D, the suspension of witness, and the fact that the plaintiff's seal affixed on the loan agreement differs from that of the plaintiff's seal imprint affixed on the loan agreement.