2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, as a lending company on September 15, 2014, lent KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant on March 21, 2016 at the interest rate and delay damages rate of KRW 34.9% per annum. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid principal of the loan, interest thereon, and delay damages.

Judgment

The monetary loan contract for consumption as evidence, No. 5, A, cannot be admitted as evidence, as there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the contract.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7, and 10, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff received a copy of passbook under the name of the Defendant at the time of the above lending, a certificate of acquisition of eligibility for health insurance, etc., and remitted the above loan to the account under the name of the Defendant.

However, the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users, where a credit service provider enters into a loan agreement, shall verify the identity of the opposite contractual party and deliver a written loan agreement to the opposite contractual party (Article 6(1)); where a credit service provider enters into a loan agreement with his/her opposite contractual party, it shall require the opposite contractual party to enter the loan amount, loan interest rate, and period for repayment in his/her own writing (Article 6-2(1)); and where the opposite contractual party confirms the existence of the opposite contractual party himself/herself by means of an authorized certificate under Article 2 subparag. 8 of the Digital Signature Act, or recording his/her intent of consent by voice, etc., the Plaintiff is deemed to have received a provisional contract by facsimile.

However, there is no assertion that a mobile phone principal had undergone the above procedure as prescribed by the above law, and there is no evidence.

In addition, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the defendant was married with the deceased B on May 4, 2004 and had three children. However, the family counseling center, an incorporated association, on August 28, 2014, which caused the failure of marriage due to the network B's assault, etc.