1. The Defendant’s KRW 125,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 21, 2015 to September 6, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant, along with the Plaintiff’s employees C, D, loan brokerage policies, was to obtain a loan from the Plaintiff by using false charter contract and related documents.

B. On October 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) prepared an application for loan of 125 million won to the Plaintiff; and (b) written an agreement on loan transaction; and (c) submitted a multi-household house lease agreement (F and security deposit of 180 million won) under the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul E building No. 202, a lessee.

However, the above lease contract was prepared by falsity, and the defendant did not enter into a lease contract with F and the above house.

C. On October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff believed that the Defendant was a genuine lessee, remitted KRW 125 million to the Defendant’s account.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's employees C and D had an internal document prepared as if the loan application was made normally and served as a letter of approval to the chairperson of the plaintiff who is not aware of the circumstances.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) In the case of joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act, which causes damage to another person jointly by several persons, the joint tort is established without requiring not only a conspiracy among actors, but also a common perception. However, if the joint tort is objectively related to the joint act, it is sufficient if the joint act is jointly related, and the damage is caused by the pertinent joint act, and thus, the joint tort liability is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da2181, May 8, 2001). According to the above facts of recognition, even if the defendant did not specifically make a public offering in the above unlawful loan act, the defendant is sufficiently aware that the loan is not normal, such as submitting a lease contract under the name of the defendant in the application for the loan to the plaintiff.