beta
Text
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. (1) On May 26, 2014, the Plaintiff received the word “able to open a bank Maspbook” from the mobile phone (number B: hereinafter “former mobile phone”) under his/her name, and gave reply to the sender of the said letter to open a bank Maspbook due to a defect in contact.
(2) On May 28, 2014, the Plaintiff opened a new account (C; hereinafter “instant account”) at our bank on May 28, 2014, and notified the account number of passbook and the OTP number issued at the request of the winners of the name, and sent the Plaintiff’s driver’s license photograph.
(3) On June 2, 2014, when an authorized certificate under the Plaintiff’s name was issued, KRW 4,400 was deposited from the instant account to the cost of issuing the certificate.
B. In the name of the party under whose name the instant loan contract, etc. was entered into, using financial information, etc. known by the Plaintiff, etc., the Plaintiff entered into a loan contract in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant loan contract” in the sequence No. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and “stock company” in the name of the Defendants was omitted) with each of the Defendants listed in the following table “transaction counterpart”. After receiving each of the amounts stated in the “loan” in the name of the Plaintiff to the instant account in the name of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff immediately transferred the amount to D, E, F, and G account through the Internet banking.
Defendant Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. 20,000 on June 3, 2014, Defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd. 500,000 credit card cash services on June 3, 2014; Defendant Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. 800,000 credit card cash services on June 3, 2014; Defendant Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. 800,000,000 on June 3, 2014
C. The Defendants and the Defendant’s Internet homepage on June 2, 2014, in the specific transaction process (1) the Defendants and the Defendants’ names were the winners of Defendant Hyundai Capital’s failure to perform their duties.