logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.13 2017가단5242914
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 5, 2014, Plaintiff’s words “B” entered into a loan transaction agreement with the content of lending KRW 3 million in the Plaintiff’s name by accessing the Defendant’s Internet homepage (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

B. On August 20, 2015, B received a summary order of KRW 3 million on the criminal facts, such as the fact that B had access to the Internet site of the Hansung Savings Bank by using the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate, and applied for a loan, and had the staff employed by himself/herself engage in the act of committing himself/herself as if he/she were the Plaintiff, and acquired by remittance of KRW 2 million, and the above summary order was finalized.

C. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with B by fraud, etc. under the instant loan agreement, and the prosecutor ordered the suspension of prosecution on November 17, 2015.

At the time of the conclusion of the instant loan contract, the Defendant confirmed his identity through the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate, and concluded a loan contract by receiving an electronic document with the certified digital signature affixed by the authorized certificate.

The Defendant remitted the loan under the instant loan contract to the bank account in the name of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant loan contract was concluded by stealing the Plaintiff’s name. As such, the Plaintiff does not bear any obligation under the instant loan contract against the Defendant.

B. The instant loan contract concluded by the Defendant through the Defendant’s valid authorized certificate is effective against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, Article 7(2)2 of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions (hereinafter “Electronic Documents Act”) and Articles 18-2 and 3(1) of the Digital Signature Act.

3. Determination

A. Article 7(2)2 of the Electronic Document Act is received.

arrow