1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Basic Facts

A. On July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff received an agreement in the name of the Defendant with a loan amounting to four million won, the expiration date of the loan period on July 5, 2017, the interest rate of 26.4% per annum, and the interest rate of 34.9% per annum, and entered into an agreement for lending transaction concerning the said loan in electronic form, and carried out the loan by remitting the amount of KRW 4 million to the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant on July 17, 2014.

B. The loan transaction agreement received by the Plaintiff in electronic form had a digital signature using the Defendant’s authorized certificate issued by a licensed certification authority.

C. As of May 10, 2017, the claim for the loan remains KRW 1,174,130,00 in total, 1,040,190 in principal, interest KRW 84,230, and delay damages KRW 49,710 in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, argument of the parties to the whole pleadings

A. The Plaintiff’s loan transaction agreement of this case was lawfully concluded through the verification of the identity by an authorized certificate and the digital signature, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining loans of KRW 1,174,130 and damages for delay of KRW 1,040,190 among them.

B. The Defendant did not enter into a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant, and the loan transaction agreement in this case is null and void by taking advantage of the Defendant’s seal imprint, certificate of personal seal, identification card, etc. issued by the Defendant with the Defendant, or by taking advantage of the Defendant’s name using a forged authorized certificate.

Judgment

Article 7(2)2 of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions (hereinafter “Electronic Document Act”) provides that “Where an electronic document received has been sent by a person who has justifiable grounds to believe that it was based on the will of the originator or his/her agent by virtue of the relationship with the originator or his/her agent, the addressee of the electronic document may regard the expression of intent contained in the electronic document as the originator’s act.”