1. The defendant's decision on recommendation of performance is based on the Seoul Central District Court 2007Gauri1703481 loan case against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The joint and several sureties (1) loan and joint and several sureties (1) loan and joint and several sureties needed a joint and several sureties in obtaining a loan from the Defendant (former El branch card), and as a joint and several sureties, the Plaintiff (20 years of age at that time) who is his knick (the Plaintiff 20 years of age at that time) entered with the Defendant C,

(2) C, without the Plaintiff’s permission, obtained a certified copy of the Plaintiff’s resident registration and a certificate of personal seal as an agent by using the Plaintiff’s identification card, and issued it to B with the Plaintiff’s seal imprint.

(3) B prepared a letter of delegation, joint and several sureties and a letter of payment for concluding joint and several sureties contracts in the name of the Plaintiff, and affixed the Plaintiff’s seal imprint certificate and submitted it to the Defendant accompanied by a copy of the

(4) The defendant submitted the above joint and several sureties document under the name of the plaintiff, and made a telephone with the telephone number recorded in the document, and confirmed the intention of joint and several sureties from the telephone counter party, and the number was not the number used by the plaintiff.

(5) After completing the above procedure, the Defendant loaned KRW 22,50,000 to B on April 18, 2003.

B. The Defendant, upon delay in the repayment of the above loans, filed a lawsuit against B and the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Gada1703481. On May 29, 2007, the Defendant rendered a decision on performance recommendation that the Plaintiff shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant the remaining principal and interest of KRW 25,128,828 and the principal of KRW 11,645,960, calculated at the rate of 28% per annum from May 13, 2007 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the decision on performance recommendation of this case”).

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(ii) each entry in Eul's evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the joint and several sureties contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is invalid by the act of unauthorized Representation B without the plaintiff's power of representation.