1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3. The defendant.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. There is no dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6-1, 2, and 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 100, and Eul evidence Nos. 100, Sep. 3, 2002, 3100,000 won out of 19,40,000 won of purchase price for vehicles with 3100,000,000 won, interest rate of 9.9%, installment period of 48 months, and the date of payment.

9. 25. 25. The loan was made by setting the rate of damages for delay as 29%, the fact that a pair Capital Co., Ltd. was merged with the Plaintiff (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiff”), and the loan claims from the Plaintiff via the Bank Business Loansnet Co., Ltd., Rod Road Map Asset Management Loans Co., Ltd., Ltd., State Asset Management Loans Co., Ltd., Ltd., and Si Asset Management Loans Co., Ltd., Ltd., and Si Asset Management Loans Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., on June 11, 2012, and the fact that the Defendant was duly transferred to the Intervenor and the Defendant at that time.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor after the instant lawsuit was filed on June 11, 2012, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case premised on the Plaintiff’s being the obligee against the Defendant is without merit.

Ultimately, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Intervenor who received loan claims at the rate of 24% per annum to be claimed by the Intervenor who subscribed to the Plaintiff within the limit of the agreed damages rate from November 21, 2002 to the date of full payment, which is the amount of KRW 18,675,773, which is sought by the Intervenor who subscribed to the Plaintiff from the date of the agreed payment to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to this, the Defendant did not enter into an installment financing agreement with the Plaintiff, which was concluded by a third party by stealing the Defendant’s resident registration certificate and seal imprint, and purchased the instant automobile.