1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,920,981 as well as 5% per annum from June 12, 2015 to June 28, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 2006, the Defendant promised to pay the loan installment after purchasing the vehicle under the Plaintiff’s name if the Defendant lent the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression and the certificate of personal seal impression to the Plaintiff’s wife C.

B. On December 2006, the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression and seal imprint certificate from Hyundai Capital Capital, with loans of KRW 48.6 million in the Plaintiff’s name at a 36-month rate (hereinafter “instant loan”) and purchased benz S280 vehicles in the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and disposed of the instant vehicle after completing the ownership transfer registration.

C. Since then, the Defendant paid the principal and interest of the loan in installments to Hyundai Capital Capital every month, but was difficult on February 2009 and suspended the payment of the loan from February 2009.

Accordingly, from February 13, 2009 to January 14, 2010, the Plaintiff, who received a demand for repayment from the Hyundai Capital Capital Capital, paid the total of KRW 22,292,621 as shown in the attached Table Dogna, on behalf of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff paid the aggregate of KRW 3,573,880 on the instant vehicle from 2007 to 2013, and KRW 54,480 on September 27, 201 and May 14, 2013, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of claim

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff paid KRW 22,292,621 among the principal and interest of the instant loan, which the Defendant promised to pay to C, on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, as to the above KRW 22,292,621, and the above money, after the date of payment, raised a dispute over the existence and scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation from June 12, 2015, which was the date of the judgment, until June 28, 2016, and from June 28, 2016, it is reasonable to dispute over the existence and scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation.