beta
Text
1. Principal on September 26, 2013 between the Plaintiff and Defendant NAK Savings Bank and the principal on September 26, 2013, 9,500.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 26, 2013, Defendant ABK Savings Bank’s transaction amounting to KRW 1,400,000 on September 26, 2013, Defendant ABK Savings Bank’s transaction amounting to KRW 1,400,000 on credit card cash services on September 27, 2013, Defendant ABK Bank’s cash services amounting to KRW 1,640,000 on September 26, 2013, Defendant ABK Bank’s cash services amounting to KRW 1,640,00 on September 26, 2013, Defendant ABK Savings Bank’s loan contract amounting to KRW 7,00,000 on September 27, 2013, the following transaction was made between the Defendants, and according to each transaction, the money deposited in the Plaintiff’s bank and the account in the Plaintiff’s name was immediately distributed in full to B, C, etc.
B. On September 23, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a telephone (the Plaintiff’s mobile phone number D); (b) sent a copy of identification card; (c) a copy of the public official identification card; (d) a copy of the passbook of the Bank; and (e) notified the security card number to the Plaintiff; and (e) received a loan through the Plaintiff’s bank and the agricultural bank passbook; (c) obtained a loan from the Plaintiff’s bank and the agricultural bank bank’s bank’s bank’s bank’s bank’s account transfer; (d) obtained a total of KRW 71,30,000 by transfer; and (e) filed a report with the police station on October 1, 2013, via the Plaintiff’s mobile phone (tel number) using the Plaintiff’s identification card.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Claim against the defendant Hyundai Card or the Korea Telecommunication Bank;
A. The parties' assertion (1) The plaintiff did not conclude a loan agreement with the above Defendants. Thus, the above Defendants did not establish a loan agreement.
Since the above Defendants did not properly observe the procedure for identification and entered into a loan agreement with a name-free person who stolen the Plaintiff’s name, the loan agreement is null and void.
In addition, in the case of Defendant C&T Bank, the Plaintiff is not responsible for the loan, since the Plaintiff did not leak the credit card password.
(2) The above Defendants.