1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff provided a loan of KRW 110 million in total to the Defendant from October 27, 2016 to October 31, 2017, by remitting KRW 91 million to the Defendant’s passbook, or providing KRW 19 million in cash, etc. As the Defendant repaid KRW 12.9 million from November 25, 2016 to January 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for payment of the remainder of KRW 970 million and delay damages therefrom.

B. Even if C had concluded a monetary loan loan contract with the Plaintiff as the Defendant’s agent without the right of representation, in light of the fact that the Defendant partially repaid the money received from the Plaintiff, it shall be deemed that C had ratified the act of unauthorized Representation. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the above loan to

C. If the Defendant had C use the passbook in the name of the Defendant, this constitutes a tort in violation of Article 3(3) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (hereinafter “Real Name Financial Transactions Act”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the above loan, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money equivalent to the above loan in compensation for damages.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the claim for a loan, the Plaintiff is recognized as having remitted an amount equivalent to KRW 91 million to a passbook under the name of the Defendant, but the Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties or was recognized by the entire purport of the pleadings, namely, the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff himself/herself did not directly contact with the Defendant in relation to the above monetary transaction from the date of the loan to the date immediately after it was claimed by the Plaintiff; (b) the Plaintiff did not have any direct contact with the Defendant in relation to the said monetary transaction; (c) the other party stated on the amount and time of the loan, which is the main content of the monetary loan loan contract, is the Defendant’s mother-friendly relationship; and (b) the Plaintiff urged repayment.