1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant with respect to the claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation with respect to the lending transaction agreement of May 25, 2001.

1. Basic facts

A. B entered into a loan transaction agreement of KRW 10,00,000 with the Defendant on May 25, 2001 under the name of the Plaintiff’s pro-Japanese who worked as a loan manager at the Defendant’s C Branch, and the loan was executed on the same day.

B. On February 28, 2003, B entered into a loan transaction agreement of KRW 20,000,000 with the Defendant, one’s mother, under the name of the Defendant’s mother, and entered into a joint and several guarantee contract for the joint and several guarantee of the said loan under the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “joint and several guarantee contract”), and the loan was executed on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole testimony and pleading of the witness B of the first instance trial

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion B entered into a loan transaction agreement and the instant joint and several guarantee contract without the Plaintiff’s consent, the Plaintiff is not liable to the Defendant for each of the above loans.

B. The defendant's assertion B entered into a loan transaction agreement and the joint and several surety contract of this case on May 25, 2001 with the plaintiff's consent, and even if not, the plaintiff ratified the above contract, so the plaintiff bears the defendant's obligations for each of the above loans.

3. Determination

A. As to the loan transaction agreement dated May 25, 2001, Nos. 1 and 2 (a loan transaction agreement) cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the agreement. In light of the witness B of the first instance trial, only the descriptions of Nos. 3, 4, 16, and 22 were entered into by the Plaintiff’s intent (a loan transaction agreement dated May 25, 2001) with the Plaintiff’s consent.

B. The testimony and testimony of the witness of the first instance court, as well as the statement in the evidence No. 8 through 14, 23, and 24, respectively, are insufficient to recognize that the loan transaction agreement was concluded on May 25, 2001 by the Plaintiff’s delegation.