1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A’s KRW 39,534,340 as well as KRW 12% per annum from May 23, 2015 to August 31, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant A, along with Defendant C, obtained a false lease contract, certificate of employment, etc., with Defendant C and his name-free loan so that Defendant A offered a loan for the employee deposit money in order to have it divided.

B. Accordingly, on May 26, 2013 with Defendant C’s consent, Defendant C prepared a false lease agreement with the purport that Defendant A lease No. 101, Nam-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant housing”) of the 3-dong 101 (hereinafter “instant housing”) owned by Defendant C is KRW 65 million. On June 2013, 2013, Defendant A transferred the same to Defendant A to file an application for a loan along with a false certificate of employment, income tax withholding receipt, payment statement, etc.

C. On June 2013, Defendant A submitted a false certificate of employment, lease contract, etc. to the bank employees in charge of loan at the sub-central branch of the Bank Korea (hereinafter “Secheon-si”) located in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, 110-7 (hereinafter “Secheon-si Bank”), as seen above, and applied for a worker deposit loan and applied for a worker deposit loan loan on June 28, 2013, with the said bank as if it actually used the loan as a deposit for lease on a deposit basis, Defendant A acquired the loan of KRW 42 million from the above bank to the bank account in the name of Defendant B (hereinafter “the lease loan of this case”).

On the other hand, on June 28, 2013, the non-party bank entered into a housing finance credit guarantee agreement (hereinafter “the credit guarantee agreement of this case”) with the non-party bank with the content that it guarantees the debt of the loan of this case under the name of the plaintiff for the loan of this case by the term of June 29, 2015, and by the term of guarantee (hereinafter “the guarantee agreement of this case”), and issued the relevant housing credit guarantee agreement to the non-party bank.

According to the credit guarantee agreement of this case, when the plaintiff fulfilled the guaranteed obligation, the defendant A paid for the performance of the guaranteed obligation, and accordingly.