1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the judgment that the Defendant asserts by emphasizing this court, and thus, citing it by the text of Article 420 of the

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. In order to avoid the same person’s credit restriction provision, the Saemaul Fund, claiming by the Defendant, entered into the instant loan agreement with the Defendant as the debtor instead of the instant legal entity.

At the time, a new official of the Saemaul Fund reported to the defendant that "no legal problems shall arise to the defendant with respect to the principal case in the future" at the location of the new Saemaul Fund C together with C.

Therefore, the new Saemaul Bank shall vest in the corporation of this case the legal effect of the loan of this case belongs to the corporation of this case, and agreed not to impose the obligation on the defendant, or entered into the loan agreement of this case by deceiving the defendant to this purport, and thus, the loan agreement of this case shall be revoked since the agreement of this case is null and void by false representation or by deception.

B. It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the new Saemaul Fund No. 5 or the remaining evidence submitted by the Defendant alone and the new Saemaul Fund C and employees of the new Saemaul Fund at the time when the Defendant entered into the loan contract of this case, stated that “No legal problems arise with respect to this case to the Defendant,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Ultimately, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone agreed that the new Saemaul Treasury did not impose the obligation pursuant to the loan agreement of this case on the Defendant.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had entered into the instant loan agreement by deceiving the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim should be accepted on the ground of its reasoning.

The judgment of the first instance court is the conclusion.