1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The authorized certificate under the Plaintiff’s name was reissued by the Financial Settlement Service on January 9, 2012.

B. On January 9, 2012, the Defendant, through Internet banking through which the Plaintiff was the debtor and deposited KRW 40,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) in the bank account (B) in the name of the Plaintiff.

C. On January 9, 2012, KRW 26,810,00 out of the above loans, KRW 20,120,000 of the existing bank account in the above bank account, and KRW 3,060,000 of the existing bank account in another bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, and KRW 49,90,000 in total were transferred to the bank account in the name of a third party.

The Plaintiff applied for suspension of payment to the bank account in which the said money was transferred, and received a refund of KRW 7,826,235 and KRW 10,674 among the said KRW 49,90,000.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, and 8, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. On January 9, 2012, the Plaintiff alleged that two savings accounts of the Seoul Southern District Public Prosecutor’s Office or the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service were used for crime by using the Plaintiff’s telephone, and misrepresenting himself as the investigator of the Seoul Southern District Public Prosecutor’s Office or staff of the Financial Supervisory Service.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff’s bank account number, password, and secret number of the security card by accessing the Internet site directed by the unsatisf.

The name-free person was re-issued an authorized certificate under the name of the Plaintiff from the financial settlement center using information entered on the above website, received loans from the Defendant using the above authorized certificate and deposited the Plaintiff’s bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, and then transferred total of KRW 49,990,000 to the bank account in the name of a third party.

The loan contract of this case concluded with the defendant using the name of the plaintiff in the name of the plaintiff is null and void since there is no agreement with the loan will. Even if the contract is valid, it is a juristic act by deception of a person who has not been registered.