Plaintiff 1 and 15 others (Law Firm Woo, Attorney New Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Apropy Social Loan Co., Ltd. and two others (Attorneys Lee E-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 5, 2017

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da5343462 Decided November 11, 2016

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

A. It is confirmed that there does not exist any obligation under the monetary loan agreement of May 19, 2015 against the Defendants by Plaintiff 1.

B. It is confirmed that Plaintiff 2’s obligation under the monetary loan agreement of June 4, 2015 against each of the Defendants does not exist.

C. It is confirmed that there is no obligation under the monetary loan agreement of July 8, 2015 against the social loan company by the Plaintiff 3 on July 8, 2015.

D. It is confirmed that there does not exist any obligation under the monetary loan agreement of June 12, 2015 against the Plaintiff 4’s social loan company and the Love Loan Co., Ltd.

E. It is confirmed that Plaintiff 5’s obligation under the monetary loan agreement on April 10, 2015 against Defendant Business Love Loan Co., Ltd. does not exist.

F. It is confirmed that there is no obligation under the monetary loan agreement of May 6, 2015 against the social loan company of Plaintiff 6 on May 6, 2015.

G. It is confirmed that Plaintiff 7’s obligation under the monetary loan contract for consumption on July 7, 2015 against the Defendants does not exist.

H. It is confirmed that Plaintiff 8’s Defendants did not have any obligation under the self-loan agreement for consumption on April 15, 2015, respectively.

I. It is confirmed that there is no obligation under the monetary loan agreement of May 14, 2015 against the social loan company of Plaintiff 9 on May 14, 2015.

(j) It is confirmed that there does not exist any obligation under the monetary loan agreement of May 22, 2015 against the social loan company and the Love Loan Co., Ltd. of Plaintiff 10, respectively.

(k) It is confirmed that there does not exist any obligation under the monetary loan agreement of June 23, 2015 against the social loan company and the Love Loan Co., Ltd. of Plaintiff 11 on June 23, 2015.

(l) It is confirmed that there is no obligation based on the monetary loan agreement of July 2, 2015 against the social loan company and the Business Love Loan Co., Ltd. of Plaintiff 12 on July 2, 2015.

(m) It is confirmed that there is no obligation under each of the monetary loan agreements as of July 25, 2015 against the Plaintiff 13’s social loan company and Defendant Business Love Loan Co., Ltd. as of July 24, 2015.

n. It is confirmed that there is no obligation under the monetary loan agreement of June 18, 2015 against the social loan company and the Love Loan Co., Ltd. of Plaintiff 14 on June 18, 2015.

(o) It is confirmed that there is no obligation under the monetary loan agreement of May 7, 2015 against the social loan company of Plaintiff 15 for the social loan company of Defendant 15.

(p) It is confirmed that there is no obligation under the monetary loan agreement of July 21, 2015 against the Defendants by Plaintiff 16, respectively.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants is revoked. The Plaintiffs’ respective claims against the Defendants are dismissed in entirety.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants’ lending performance against the Plaintiffs

1) The Defendants concluded each loan contract with each of the relevant Plaintiff on the same date as indicated in each claim for the claim between April 10, 2015 and July 25, 2015, through electronic transaction with each of the relevant Plaintiff (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant loan contracts”), and deposited the amount corresponding to each of the column listed in attached Table 1 (as indicated in attached Table 1, “rb capital” in attached Table 1) into the bank account in the relevant Plaintiff’s name.

2) At the time of entering into each of the instant loan contracts, the contracting party, each of the pertinent plaintiffs, accessed the Defendants’ computer system through an authorized certificate under the relevant Plaintiff’s name. The bank account number, password, and password of the pertinent Plaintiff were accurately entered, and the copies of the relevant Plaintiff’s identification card were sent to the Defendants by facsimile.

(b) Details of loans following the crime of Bosing Fraud Group;

(1) The solicitation of crimes, such as the fraud of the Bosing Fraud Group

The non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 6 and the non-party 7 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 7 of this case") divided the roles of each person on the date of 2015 and provided them with financial transaction-related information that would lead them to work for the unspecified number of women. Based on this, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 5, the non-party 6 and the non-party 7 were provided with the financial transaction-related information

2) Details of the loan made by Plaintiff 13

6. On July 16, 2015, the non-party 4 applied for the above loan of the non-party 1 to the non-party 3 mobile phone account in the name of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the defendant 1, the non-party 3, the defendant 1, the defendant 1, the defendant 1, the defendant 3.

3) Details of loans made in the name of the remaining plaintiffs except for plaintiffs 13

The instant Bosing Fraud Group, as well as Plaintiff 13 (Plaintiffs 1 through 12, 14 through 16), was aware that they were employed in a virtual company by means of the preceding paragraphs and the comparison in accordance with the public offering in accordance with paragraph (1) of the above paragraph. Based on the personal information and data such as resident registration number, address, mobile phone number, driver's license number, photograph, account number, security card number, and password of an authorized certificate number, it was issued a new certificate in the above plaintiffs' name, and issued a mobile cash card. After being issued a mobile cash card, the Plaintiff applied for the Internet loan using each authorized certificate in the relevant Plaintiff's name as if the Plaintiff himself applied for the loan, and deceiving the employees in charge of the Defendants by deceiving the Defendants, under the name of the loan, the amount stated in the corresponding column in attached Table 1 was transferred from the Defendants to each of the relevant Plaintiff's accounts.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The main defense and judgment against Plaintiff 1, a social loan corporation and a business love loan corporation, which Defendant 1 gave rise to the main defense and judgment

The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance 3. C. (1).

3. Claims and determination as to the merits of the plaintiffs and the defendants

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

Each of the loan contracts of this case is concluded by a third party with an authorized certificate issued in the name of the plaintiffs by unlawful means on the basis of personal information related to financial transactions, which was provided by deceiving the plaintiffs on the basis of employment, and thus, cannot be deemed valid for the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs' obligations under each of the loan contracts of this case are nonexistent, and thus, they

B. Summary of the defendants' assertion

As long as the Defendants, the addressee of each of the loan contracts of this case, who is an electronic document, verify whether the sender is the Plaintiffs through an authorized certificate, they fall under the case where the Defendants, the addressee, were sent by a person with reasonable grounds to believe that they were based on the intent of the Plaintiffs or their agents, and thus Article 7(2)2 of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions (hereinafter “Electronic Documents Act”) applies, each of the loan contracts of this case is valid against the Plaintiffs.

C. Determination

1) Article 7(2) of the Electronic Document Act provides, “A addressee of an electronic document may, in any of the following cases, regard an addressee of an electronic document as the originator’s act.” Article 7(2) of the same Act provides, “Where an addressee of an electronic document received is sent by the originator or his/her agent due to his/her relationship with the originator or his/her agent, by the addressee’s reasonable ground for believing that the electronic document was sent according to the intent of the originator or his/her agent.” In addition, Article 11 of the Electronic Document Act provides, “The matters concerning digital signatures in electronic commerce shall be governed by the Digital Signature Act,” and Article 18-2 of the Digital Signature Act provides, “In cases where other Acts do not restrict or exclude the identification of the addressee by using an authorized certificate, the addressee may verify his/her identity by using an authorized certificate issued by a licensed certification authority pursuant to the provisions of this

2) It is necessary to secure the safety and reliability of electronic commerce and facilitate its use by recognizing the validity of electronic commerce verifying the identity through an authorized certificate. On the other hand, the necessity to protect the victim who suffers damage to the use of unlawfully issued authorized certificates using financial information, etc. provided by the victim of the crime, such as Bosing, cannot be denied. Thus, whether there exists a justifiable reason under Article 7(2)2 of the Electronic Document Act should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the intrinsic characteristics of the electronic commerce, which is non-face-to-face transaction not premised on the physical document, as well as the degree of breach of the duty of care to use and manage the means of access issued in the name of the victim of the electronic document, such as the plaintiffs, as well as the degree of breach of the duty of care in the use and management of the means of access issued in the name of the victim of the electronic document, from the perspective of the

3) According to the above facts, at the time of granting each of the instant loans to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants confirmed their identity by means of an authorized certificate under the Plaintiff’s name when preparing a loan contract through the Internet, and received a copy of the Plaintiff’s identification card, and then deposited the loan into the relevant Plaintiff’s account. The Plaintiffs informed the members of the Bosing Fraud Group of the account, the account number, security card number, and password of the authorized certificate necessary for the re-issuance of the authorized certificate.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence and evidence mentioned above as well as evidence Nos. 1, 1, 1, and 22, which can be acknowledged by the Defendants based on the overall purport of pleadings, the following facts alone are difficult to view that the loan contract received by the Defendants at the time of each of the instant loans constitutes a case transmitted by a person who has justifiable grounds to believe that it was based on the intent of the Plaintiff or its agent, and there is no other evidence to support this point. Thus, Article 7(2)2 of the Electronic Documents Act cannot be deemed to apply.

① An authorized certificate in the name of the Plaintiffs used to conclude each of the instant lending contracts is re-issued by using the Plaintiff’s personal information related to financial transactions by deceiving the Defendant from the Defendant, a third party, to borrow employment.

② As above, it seems that the Plaintiffs did not recognize or wish to reissue an authorized certificate under the Plaintiffs’ names.

③ Of the instant Bophishing Fraud Group, the Plaintiffs did not directly have a relationship with Nonparty 2, who was in charge of identifying the Plaintiffs’ account number, security card number, and password of authorized certificates, or Nonparty 1, who was in charge of obtaining an authorized certificate issued under the Plaintiffs’ names, and applied for an Internet loan and prepared a loan contract, but rather, formed a trust relationship with Nonparty 3 through Nonparty 4, who was in charge of preparing a loan contract.

④ An authorized certificate in the name of the plaintiffs used to obtain each of the loans of this case seems to have been issued without checking the identity of the plaintiffs himself/herself in a face-to-face way.

⑤ It is true that the act of obtaining an authorized certificate under the name of another person in our society is often causing a lot of crimes. In light of this, Article 2-4(1) of the Special Act on the Prevention of Loss from Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud and Refund of Damages stipulates, “Financial Companies shall take measures to verify the identity of the relevant financial company, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where a user files an application for a loan to the relevant financial company to prevent damage from telecommunications-based financial fraud.” Article 2-3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act lists “the method of using a user’s telephone (including a mobile phone) registered with the financial company” and “the method recognized and publicly announced by the Financial Services Commission as a method of identification above the same level.”

(6) In the event that a lending company, such as the Defendants, entered into a lending contract with the opposite contractual party, the opposite contractual party must verify his/her identity (see Article 6(1) of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users). Moreover, the Korea Stock Savings Bank, Industrial Bank, and Industrial Bank, which are engaged in the same kind of business as the Plaintiffs, are not limited to the verification through an authorized certificate at the time of lending to the Plaintiff, the receipt and confirmation of a copy of identification, and the deposit of loans to the relevant Plaintiff’s account under the name of the said Plaintiff, but also appears to have confirmed his/her identity by using a mobile phone in the relevant Plaintiff’s name. However, there is no assertion that the Defendants confirmed his/her identity or taken measures

4) Therefore, since each of the instant lending contracts cannot be deemed valid for the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is with merit, and the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants shall be accepted on the grounds that the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and all of the defendants' appeals are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judge Lee Soo-soo (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) appears to be a clerical error in the statement of “No. 4-7, No. 5-6, and No. 6-4” (see, e.g., evidence No. 4-7, No. 5-6, and No. 6-4).

Note 2) Of the Schedule 1, 'OK Savings Bank', 'OK Savings Bank', 'U.S. money' is excluded.

3) Article 7 (2) 2 of the Electronic Document Act can be deemed to have accepted almost all of the UNCITRAL Section 13 (3) (b) of the Electronic Commerce Model Act. The original text is as follows. (3) 2 of the public announcement of the public announcement of Articles 13 (3) of the Electronic Documents Act, an administrative member of the e-document 23 (3) 3, an administrative member of the e-document 2009, an administrative member of the e-document 2009, an administrative member of the e-document 2009, an administrative member of the e-document 2009, an administrative member of the e-document 2009, an administrative member of the e-document 2009, an administrative member of the e-document 2009, an administrative member of the e-document 2009, an administrative member of the e-document 2009.