The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order for a false declaration of intention to be established, there shall be an agreement between the other party as to the disagreement and the other party. If a third party directly puts his seal and affixes his seal on loan-related documents, such as a letter of loan for consumption, etc. as the principal debtor or joint guarantor, the third party himself indicates that he is the debtor of the loan for consumption, and the third party has expressed his intention to have another person use the loan under the name of the third party by avoiding the credit restrictions set by the financial institution;

Even if the principal and interest are to be repaid at the expense of another person, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, this is merely an intention to vest economic effects under a loan for consumption in another person, and the legal effect cannot be deemed to be an intention to vest in another person. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that there is a disagreement between the truth and indication of a third party

Therefore, in order to recognize the existence of such special circumstances in a specific case, it is necessary to actively prove that a financial institution belongs to the actual borrower and to the name trustor the legal effect of the loan in question, and that it has agreed or understood that the name trustor will not bear the debt burden.

(2) On June 12, 2008, the court below held that the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest of interest and delay damages under the loan agreement of this case, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, barring any special circumstance. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest of interest and delay damages pursuant to the loan agreement of this case. In other words, Group B introduced officers and borrowed stockholders of special purpose corporations (SPC) from E as it is impossible to carry out real estate development projects, etc. under the Mutual Savings Banks Act, and thereby establishes a special purpose corporation in its name. In that process, the Defendant was not more than B.