1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 2012, the Plaintiff issued a copy of the Plaintiff’s driver’s license to B by facsimile for the issuance of a credit card upon request by B for the presentation of his/her performance.

B. B took place as if the Plaintiff had a copy of the driver’s license under the name of the Plaintiff, and around April 2, 2012, at the “D” communications agency located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, opened a mobile phone under the name of the Plaintiff.

On April 30, 2012, B had the intent to obtain a loan by using the Plaintiff’s personal information, and applied for a loan by 27,000,000 won with the Defendant’s cell phone from the phone in the Plaintiff’s name, 24.9% per annum of interest on loan, and 36.99% per annum of interest on delay, B received the Plaintiff’s personal information from the Plaintiff and notified the employee in charge of the same to obtain the certification number with the above cell phone in the Plaintiff’s name, and received 27,00,000,000 won from the account in the Plaintiff’s name.

C. B was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment by the Seoul Western District Court due to the act of forging a loan contract, etc. in the name of the Plaintiff and deceiving the loan from the Defendant, etc. (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2012Da1355 Decided November 14, 2012), and thereafter the appeal was dismissed and finalized.

On the other hand, on May 29, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 27,434,356 to the Defendant based on the above loan contract under the Plaintiff’s name.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 through 12, witness Eul's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B is not a conclusion of the above loan contract on behalf of the Plaintiff, but a loan was received as if the Plaintiff were the Plaintiff, and Article 126 of the Civil Act is not the first place, and Article 126 of the Civil Act is not the intention of the Plaintiff to pay his/her debt by deceiving the Plaintiff from the beginning.