1. The Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the outstanding amount under an entrustment contract with the Defendant on January 10, 2013.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 10, 2013, C agreed to register C’s father’s Plaintiff as the instant business entity with D, who is the real operator of the Defendant Company (formerly changed: Dong Branch Co., Ltd.)’s B (hereinafter “instant business”).

B. In accordance with the above agreement, a contract under which the Plaintiff was entrusted by the Defendant with the business office of this case (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”) and a written agreement to assume the obligation with respect to the obligation to be repaid by D to the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant contract to assume the obligation”). After that, D entered KRW 16,313,836 in the column for the obligation assumption contract of this case in the blank for the obligation assumption contract of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 8-10, 11, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C made each of the contracts of this case by stealing using the Plaintiff’s name without permission, and thus, there is no obligation to pay the outstanding amount to the Defendant, and C, by deceiving the Defendant from D, prepares a written agreement to assume the obligation of this case to the Defendant Company in the name of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant is nonexistent since it did not have the consent or consent of the Defendant Company, the obligee, at the time of the agreement to assume the obligation of this case, did not take effect.

B. The plaintiff alleged by the defendant is the principal who entered into the instant entrustment contract and the assumption of obligation agreement, and even if not, the plaintiff entrusted C with the authority to conclude each of the above contracts, and is liable as the nominal lender.

3. If the seal imprinted by the holder’s seal affixed to the document of judgment is affixed with the seal, barring special circumstances, it shall be presumed that the authenticity of the seal imprint will be established, that is, the act of affixing the seal will be based on the will of the holder of the document, and once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to