1. Under a loan agreement, KRW 7,392,106,00,000,000,000,000,000

1. Confession as to a claim against Defendant any case card company (Articles 208(3)1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant SBA Savings Bank, the Fair Savings Bank, the Hyundai Card Company, and the New Card Company

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that B and C conspired with the Plaintiff, and as if C were the Plaintiff, they concluded a loan contract with the employees of the Defendant financial institution by telephone conversations as if they were the Plaintiff, and the Defendant card company without permission re-issues the card from the Defendant card company to the Plaintiff’s debt incurred.

Since the Plaintiff did not have any intent to conclude each loan contract with the Defendants at all, the Plaintiff does not have any honor on the part of the Defendants.

Since the acts of B and C constitute an unauthorized representation and the plaintiff did not ratification, each loan contract, etc. has no effect on the plaintiff.

The lower court rulings submitted by Defendant SBA Savings Bank shall not apply to this case.

B. Where the judgment agent does a legal act in his/her name by deceiving himself/herself as if he/she was the principal without indicating an act of representation and by deceiving himself/herself as if he/she was the principal, an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act may not be established, unless there are any special circumstances. However, where the principal has basic power of representation to act on his/her behalf, and the other party has justifiable grounds to believe that the above mother was the exercise of his/her authority on his/her own, the legal principle of an expression agent beyond his

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da49814 delivered on June 28, 2002, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff opened and made available to B the head of a Maspbook under one’s name, and allowing B to freely use this case.