2...

A. Upon B’s request by B, the Plaintiff only lent the Plaintiff’s name in the opening of B’s Handphone, and did not conclude a loan contract with the Defendant or received a loan. However, the Plaintiff asserted that B used the Plaintiff’s name to obtain a loan by entering into an installment financing contract with the Defendant on July 21, 201 (hereinafter “instant loan contract”) with the Defendant on the ground that B used the Plaintiff’s name and received the loan. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay a loan under the instant loan contract against the Defendant.

B. As to this, the Defendant confirmed the documents evidencing that the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff at the time of the instant loan contract, such as the Plaintiff’s identification card, certificate of personal seal impression, certificate of employment, and copy of passbook. Accordingly, the Defendant concluded the instant loan contract with the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is valid

The Defendant’s assertion appears to be the party to whom the Plaintiff entered into the instant loan agreement with the Defendant, and in addition, the Plaintiff’s legitimate representative in the instant loan agreement.

As to the fact that the defendant's employee fulfilled his duty to confirm himself, and that there is a justifiable reason to believe B as the plaintiff himself, the defendant did not appear to have asserted, and that he did not comply with the demand of the party court to this case even though he urged it, this part shall be arranged as the defendant did not assert it in accordance with the principle of pleading.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of existence of an obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, has asserted to deny the fact that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the first claim in advance, the defendant, the creditor, bears his/her assertion and burden of proof as to the requirement of legal relationship, and if it is found that either party used the name of another party, not his/her own name, the defendant,