A. On July 22, 2015, the Defendant received an application for a loan under the Plaintiff’s name through Defendant Barnet website and received an electronic signature via an authorized certificate, and subsequently, decided to borrow KRW 32 million to the Plaintiff after going through a telephone via a mobile phone in the Plaintiff’s name and going through a personal verification procedure, and remitted KRW 32 million to the new bank account (B) in the Plaintiff’s name.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul's evidence No. 8-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (1) On July 21, 2015, the judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim for the principal lawsuit (1) was made with the Defendant after the Plaintiff had access to the new bank website and had the Plaintiff reissued an authorized certificate under the Plaintiff’s name, which was suspended on July 22, 2015, and the said loan contract was invalidated by an expression of intent by fraud, and thus, there is no obligation of the Plaintiff against the Defendant under the said loan contract.

(2) (A) In any of the following cases, the addressee of an electronic document may regard the expression of intent contained in the electronic document as the originator’s act.

2. Where an electronic document received has been transmitted by a person who has justifiable grounds to believe that it was based on the will of the originator or his/her agent, in view of the relations with the originator or his/her agent, the digital signature in the course of electronic commerce under Article 11 [Matters concerning digital signatures].