1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's transferee's claim against the defendant.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On August 1, 1994, the Plaintiff Intervenor’s assertion and the Defendant extended the repayment date after receiving a loan of KRW 10,000,000 from the Korea Development Bank. On August 23, 1997, the Plaintiff changed the loan amount of KRW 9,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan contract”); and on February 14, 2003, the Plaintiff received the instant loan contract claim and notified the Defendant. On June 15, 201, the Intervenor received the instant loan contract claim from the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant thereof. Accordingly, the Defendant concluded the instant loan contract with the Defendant on June 24, 2008, and the Defendant was obligated to pay damages for delay as to the remaining principal of the instant loan contract and KRW 3,474,373,373.

In addition, E argues that there is a joint and several liability for the obligations of the loan contract of this case concluded by E pursuant to Article 832 of the Civil Code, since E has a common right of representation on behalf of the defendant who is the spouse.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s instant loan contract was concluded by stealing the Defendant’s former spouse E by stealing the Defendant’s name, and that the Defendant’s obligation under the instant loan contract was extinguished by prescription.

2. We examine the authenticity of the above document, on the following grounds: each written application for the borrowing of funds (Evidence 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, 3-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 3-1, 2-1, and 3-1, 2-2, 3-2, 2-2, 3-2, and 4-1 of the personal credit information provided and used as a loan transaction agreement (Evidence 4-1, 4-1) submitted by the plaintiff transferee by the plaintiff transferee.

When the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, there is no clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the contents of the statement.