beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 27, 2018, the Defendant entered into a loan agreement by receiving an application for a mobile loan in the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant loan”) with a maturity of KRW 5 million from the Defendant’s mobile website and KRW 5 million from June 11, 2021, and deposited KRW 5 million into the Plaintiff’s national bank account in the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant loan”).
B. The instant loan was carried out according to the procedure, such as transfer of the loan to a national bank in the name of the Plaintiff, which is already verified by a financial institution, (1) the inquiry made possible after the Plaintiff’s identity certification, (2) the Plaintiff’s digital signature on the application for the loan of the Defendant mobile website via the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate, (3) the delivery of documents necessary for the loan (the Plaintiff’s identification card, health insurance qualification acquisition certificate, health and long-term care insurance payment certificate), (4) the confirmation of the Plaintiff’s identity
C. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming the payment of the principal and interest of the instant loan with Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018 tea1367958, and the said court issued the payment order stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 5,032,347 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from December 12, 2018 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with respect to KRW 4,745,291 as to KRW 5,77 won and KRW 4,745,291.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties did not have filed an application for the instant loan to the Defendant, and C at will established a mobile phone by arbitrarily stealing the Plaintiff’s identification card and then using an authorized certificate under the name of the Plaintiff, which was voluntarily established or stolen in the process of filing an application for the loan to the Defendant.