1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have concluded a loan agreement with the Defendant listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) and borrowed money.

The instant loan agreement was concluded in the name of the Plaintiff using the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and seal imprint, which the Plaintiff’s mother without any authority, and the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to repay the loan to the Plaintiff on the premise that the instant loan agreement is valid. As such, the Plaintiff seeks to confirm the invalidity of the instant loan agreement and the existence of the obligation for the loan based thereon.

2. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff is recognized as having entered into the instant loan agreement directly with the Defendant or having the instant loan agreement concluded by granting the right of representation to B, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the premise that the instant loan agreement is null and void is without merit.

The Plaintiff’s seal impression is affixed to the Plaintiff’s name next to the Plaintiff’s letter of loan agreement (No. 1) of this case. The Plaintiff’s seal impression is attached to the Plaintiff’s certificate issued on August 16, 2016, which is the date of conclusion of the agreement and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license

The Defendant, upon receiving an application for a loan, sent the Plaintiff’s mobile phone (C) for confirmation of loan, and the Plaintiff confirmed that the loan amount, loan period, interest rate, and monthly installments were the same as the content of the application.

The Plaintiff asserts that, after receiving a letter demanding arrears from the Defendant, B came to know of the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement by stealing the Plaintiff’s name.

However, the plaintiff has used the same mobile phone number before the conclusion of the agreement.