1. The Plaintiff, Defendant A, and Defendant B, jointly and severally with Defendant A, pay KRW 9,117,106, respectively.

1. The facts in the separate sheet of claim alleged by the plaintiff as the cause of claim in this case do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers).

Therefore, Defendant A, the principal debtor, is obligated to pay KRW 70,000,000, and Defendant B, the joint and several surety, jointly and severally with Defendant A, as requested by the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff who acquired the claim of the first financial institution (the National Bank of Korea), and KRW 9,117,106, respectively.

2. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion

A. Defendant A defense that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case expired due to the completion of the extinctive prescription, but comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the aforementioned evidence, Defendant A’s defense of extinctive prescription is apparent in the record, and the fact that Defendant A’s defense of extinctive prescription is not reasonable, since the Plaintiff, who acquired the above claim, filed a lawsuit of this case on March 23, 2006, which is the transferor of the claim, for the payment order against the Defendants under the Suwon District Court Branch of Sungnam Mutual Savings Bank issued on March 3, 2006 and the payment order was issued on August 14, 2006, and the above payment order became final and conclusive against Defendant A.

B. Defendant A voluntarily concluded the instant loan agreement without Defendant A’s consent, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable. However, if Defendant A’s name and address stated in the instant loan agreement (No. 4-1 and No. 2) are deemed to be Defendant A’s own pen, and the Plaintiff received Defendant A’s identification card at the time of the instant loan agreement on April 30, 199, and completed the procedure for identification. Thus, the instant loan agreement is based on Defendant A’s intent.