채무부존재확인
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) B and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. An objection to the trial;
1. The reasons why the trial of the basic facts in this part are stated are as follows: (a) the witness of the third five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be referred to in the part "1. Basic Facts" among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the witness of the court of first instance shall be referred to as "the witness of the court of first instance"; (b) therefore, they shall be cited in accordance
2. Plaintiff A’s principal claim
A. Plaintiff A’s assertion 1) On May 22, 2013, Plaintiff A filed a request for the correction and re-issuance of the English name stated in the instant card No. 1 and the destruction of the instant card, and Plaintiff A’s request for the destruction of the instant card. However, Plaintiff A’s loan of the instant card No. 1 by using the instant card No. 1 without Plaintiff A’s consent, and Plaintiff A did not bear any obligation under the instant loan agreement. Defendant A did not bear any obligation under the instant card No. 1 card loan agreement. 2) As long as Plaintiff A’s card No. 1 and card No. 1 were properly entered and an application for the card theory was filed, the instant loan agreement ought to be deemed valid between Plaintiff A and the Defendant, regardless of who is the applicant.
In addition, the applicant was C.
Even if the loan agreement of the first card loan agreement of this case was made effective between the plaintiff A and the defendant according to the delegation of financial transaction to the plaintiff A.
② The lending Agreement on the First Card was concluded without Plaintiff A’s consent.
Even if the plaintiff A grants the right of representation related to the use of the card No. 1 of this case by issuing the card No. 1 of this case to C and informing him of the card password, the plaintiff A shall be deemed to have granted the right of representation related to the use of the card No. 1 of this case.
3. C’s act constitutes an unauthorized representation.
Even if the plaintiff A received text messages informing the defendant of the lending of card loan, the first card loan of this case was deposited in the account of the plaintiff A.