1. The Plaintiff’s principal amounting to KRW 20,00,000 based on a credit loan agreement on July 19, 2013 against the Defendant and its related thereto.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 18, 2013, the Plaintiff received a mobile phone text message from the Plaintiff that “(D)” and “B agent/fax number [C] front and rear of the identification card / front and rear of the passbook / front of the passbook / a copy of the business registration certificate/portable phone number (D).” On July 18, 2013, the Plaintiff was given a counseling on the loan from an unqualified person in terms of the phone number(D) and the E number, which is the phone number of the above text message.

B. A person who is not eligible for a name-based statement is B, and is a registered company with the Financial Supervisory Service, and became aware of the membership number and website address. The Plaintiff entered the membership number known to the person who was not eligible for a name-based statement after having access to the above website, and the search was conducted by B, thereby making the person who was not eligible for

C. The Plaintiff sent a copy of the resident registration certificate requested as necessary for the loan, a copy of the agricultural bank passbook, a copy of the business registration certificate, etc. to a person who has failed to name by facsimile, and the passbook number and the security card number were also verbally notified.

On July 19, 2013, when using the Plaintiff’s personal information, the Plaintiff’s personal information was reissued via the Nonghyup Internet site on July 19, 2013, and then, the Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff’s personal information and applied for loans by accessing the Defendant company’s Internet site around 11:40 on the same day.

E. Accordingly, the employees of the Defendant Company contacted with the Plaintiff’s telephone number prepared at the time of the application for the loan by the unsatisfed winners, and the name unsatisfys who received the phone was the Plaintiff.

(C) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant Company’s phone number does not exist at the time of the instant case. The Defendant Company’s employees did not request the Defendant Company’s phone number at the time of the instant case. The Defendant Company’s employees did not “the name of the vehicle purchased by the Plaintiff through the Defendant in 2009” to verify the Defendant’s identity. However, the Defendant Company’s employees did not control the Defendant Company’s name.