The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On March 22, 2017, the Plaintiff was found to have failed to receive wages smuggling from Company D.

Accordingly, the plaintiff provided a resident registration abstract, wage in arrears, resident registration certificate, cellular phone, and account number to D.

D was granted a loan of KRW 2,00,000 in the name of the Plaintiff by using an identification card, etc. received from the Plaintiff on March 24, 2017 from the Defendant Company.

(A) Nos. 2, 3, and 1). The plaintiff asserts that the loan of this case is not based on the plaintiff's intent, and that the plaintiff has no obligation to repay the loan to the defendant.

The loan transaction in this case seems to have been conducted through the procedure for verifying the Plaintiff’s identity through the authorized certificate under the name of the Plaintiff.

(A) evidence 30 pages 10- Plaintiff’s cell phone, and evidence 1). However, in full view of the provisions of Articles 7(2)2 and 11 of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions (hereinafter “Electronic Documents Act”) and Articles 3(2) and 18-2 of the Digital Signature Act, an electronic document sent by a person who is confirmed to be the principal by an authorized certificate issued by a licensed certification authority in transactions by electronic documents, even if it was produced and sent against his/her will, barring any special circumstance, constitutes “where the received electronic document was sent by a person who, in view of his/her relationship with the originator or his/her agent, has a justifiable reason to believe that it was based on the will of the originator or his/her agent” as provided in Article 7(2)2 of the Electronic Documents Act, barring special circumstances.

Therefore, in such cases, the addressee of the electronic document can regard the expression of intent contained in the electronic document as the originator's, even without going through additional identification procedures such as interview.

(Supreme Court Decision 2017Da257395 Decided March 29, 2018). Therefore, the instant loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is subject to the said agreement.