채무부존재확인
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. On December 18, 2012, each insurance contract (hereinafter “each of the instant insurance contracts”) was concluded between the Defendant, an insurance company, and the Plaintiff, as indicated in the separate sheet. On December 18, 2012, each of the instant insurance contracts was implemented with the deposit funds of each of the instant insurance contracts as collateral, and the Plaintiff’s loan to the debtor (hereinafter “instant loan”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan of this case was made by the third party by stealing the Plaintiff’s name, and there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the loan of this case.
B. The Defendant’s assertion (1) The instant loan was made by wire to verify the intent of the Plaintiff’s loan, i.e., a non-face loan, for the Plaintiff’s convenience. In that process, ① the Plaintiff’s resident registration number and his domicile registered under an insurance contract, ② the certification through a mobile phone in the Plaintiff’s name, ③ the process of checking the bank account in the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant verification procedure”). Therefore, the instant loan ought to be deemed to have been made according to the Plaintiff’s intent.
(2) Although not so doing, E, the Plaintiff’s mother, applied for the loan by stealing the name of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was delegated by the Plaintiff to the management, etc. of each insurance contract of this case and the Plaintiff’s real estate (the existence of the basic power of attorney) during the Plaintiff’s stay in the United States, and as long as the loan of this case was carried out through the confirmation procedure of this case, the Defendant is deemed to have justifiable grounds to believe that the loan of this case was carried out by the Plaintiff himself. Therefore, in accordance with the analogical application of the expression agency doctrine of Article 126 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff bears the obligation to the Defendant.