A. On March 21, 2017, a loan transaction agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on a yearly interest rate of KRW 27.9% and March 21, 202, respectively (hereinafter “instant loan transaction agreement”).

B. The Defendant transferred KRW 30 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Plaintiff (C; hereinafter “instant account”) following the preparation of the instant loan transaction agreement.

C. The Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s request, keeps a certified copy and abstract of the Plaintiff’s name issued on March 21, 2017, a copy of the Plaintiff’s identification card, and the Plaintiff’s health insurance qualification acquisition certificate together with the relevant documents related to the loan.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan transaction contract of this case was made by stealing the Plaintiff’s name, and is not the Plaintiff’s body.

Around February 2017, the Plaintiff issued a certificate of personal seal impression as it is necessary for employment. However, there was no fact that the Plaintiff opened the agricultural bank account of this case or prepared the loan transaction contract of this case.

Therefore, there is no loan obligation based on the loan transaction contract of this case against the defendant.

B. If, barring any special circumstance, if the authenticity of a holder of a title deed signed and sealed on a private document is reproduced by his/her seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been established. Once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the presumption that such authenticity of the seal imprint is based on the intent of the holder of a title deed, i.e., the creation of the seal imprints, is de facto presumed, and thus, the person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprints doubt that the act of affixing the seal pursuant to