1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 2, 2013, the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with the Plaintiff’s Internet loan application with a maturity of KRW 4 million on the Defendant’s Internet homepage (hereinafter “instant loan”) on December 2, 2015, and deposited KRW 4 million into the Plaintiff’s Nonghyup Bank account in the name of the Plaintiff.

B. The instant loan was carried out according to the procedures, such as ① inquiries made after the Plaintiff’s identity certification, ② digital signature via the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate, ③ facsimile delivery of documents necessary for the loan, ④ confirmation of the Plaintiff’s identity through the Counseling Counseling Center’s telephone, ⑤ transfer of loans to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Plaintiff, etc.

C. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for the payment order of the principal and interest of the instant case as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014 tea295581, and the said court issued the payment order (hereinafter the instant payment order) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay damages for delay at the rate of 39% per annum from December 10, 2014 to the date of full payment, with respect to KRW 3,493,257 and its KRW 3,083,208, and the damages for delay from December 10, 2014 to the date of full payment, and became final and conclusive as the Plaintiff did not raise any objection.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made based on personal information, such as the Plaintiff’s personal information, which was known in advance after Nonparty B illegally obtained an authorized certificate under the Plaintiff’s name and opened a mobile phone under the Plaintiff’s name.

As such, since the loan agreement of this case entered into by B by stealing the name of the plaintiff is null and void, the execution by the defendant under the payment order of this case shall not be permitted.

B. Determination 1: (a) Article 3(2) of the Digital Signature Act provides that a certified digital signature exists.