2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On March 28, 2018, the Plaintiff, under the name of the loan applicant, performed the loan on the condition that the principal amount be KRW 49,00,000,000, the loan period be 60 months, interest rate of 18.9% per annum, and the principal and interest per month be repaid.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan agreement”). The principal and interest of a loan was overduely repaid, resulting in loss of interest due to the repayment of the installment, and the balance of the loan as of June 27, 2018 is KRW 51,279,746 (principal principal KRW 49,00,000, interest KRW 2,212,899, interest KRW 56,847).

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant concluded the loan contract of this case, the defendant is liable to pay the balance of the loan and damages for delay thereof to the plaintiff, since there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the ground of claim as a whole.

However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant concluded the instant loan contract only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 8 submitted by the Plaintiff.

Rather, in full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that D, the Defendant’s husband, entered into the instant contract by stealing the Defendant’s name.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the defendant concluded the instant loan contract as a contracting party is without merit.

(1) The instant loan is a “oto-digital mobile loan agreement” in which the contract is concluded only in mobile, and the authentication procedure and the ARS consent procedure were completed through a mobile phone in the Defendant’s name used by D.

Furthermore, it was done only by sending the Defendant’s driver’s license photograph to E corporation, which is a loan-handling affiliated store with the above mobile phone.

(2) Although the ownership of the vehicle purchased through the instant loan was registered in the name of the Defendant, the Defendant did not directly take over the said vehicle, and rather D took over the said vehicle, and the said money as security.