1. The Plaintiff’s interest on KRW 16,836,198 based on a monetary loan agreement concluded on May 23, 2014 against the Defendant and interest thereon.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that, on May 23, 2014, the Defendant and the Defendant enter into a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with Nonparty D by stealing the Plaintiff’s name.

As the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement, the Plaintiff asserts that there is no obligation under the loan agreement for consumption against the Defendant.

2. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims to deny the fact that the cause of the debt occurred by specifying the first claim, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of asserting and supporting the facts that are necessary

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998). In this case, the monetary loan contract of this case (Evidence A (Evidence A, No. 1, No. 3) was drawn up by the plaintiff.

There is no evidence to prove that the signature of the plaintiff was written, and the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff is a party to the monetary loan contract of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

[Around October 2, 2013, the monetary loan contract of this case was prepared in the course of additional loan based on the monetary loan contract of 15 million won as of October 2, 2013. The defendant, upon entering into the monetary loan contract of this case, has received the plaintiff's business registration certificate (Evidence 1-1-2), value-added tax base certificate (Evidence 1-2), E bank transaction statement (Evidence 2), plaintiff's identification card (Evidence 4), resident registration copy (Evidence 5), and resident registration copy (Evidence 5). However, in light of the date of issuance of each of the above evidence, each of the above evidence appears to be only the documents that the defendant received at the time of entering into the loan for consumption as of October 2, 2013, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant received the above documents in the course of confirming the plaintiff's intent while entering into the loan contract of this case for consumption). The defendant, who is the plaintiff's name.