beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Around August 23, 2017, Nonparty B, a summary of the Plaintiff’s cause of the claim, stolen the Plaintiff’s name, and entered into an agreement with the Defendant to obtain a loan from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff did not receive a loan from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff did not receive a secondhand vehicle.
Since the above loan agreement is null and void, the plaintiff is demanding the plaintiff to return the loan, and the defendant is seeking confirmation of the absence of the obligation to return the loan.
2. Determination:
A. According to the written evidence Nos. 4 and 5, recording file Nos. 6, and sound, and the purport of the pleading, the Plaintiff subscribed to a loan agreement with the Defendant’s employee on August 23, 2017 by hearing the explanation of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to obtain a loan of KRW 35,00,000 upon accepting an application for the loan agreement. The Plaintiff consented to the Defendant’s employee’s remittance of the loan to the vehicle selling company around August 23, 2017, and the Defendant recognized the fact that the Defendant remitted the loan of KRW 35,00,000 to the vehicle selling company.
B. According to the above facts, a loan agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on August 23, 2017 (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) is valid, and the Defendant paid 35,000,000 won to the Plaintiff pursuant to the said loan agreement.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not acceptable, since the plaintiff is liable for the repayment of 35,00,000 won to the defendant.
The circumstance that the Plaintiff was not able to receive the vehicle does not affect the validity of the loan agreement of this case and does not constitute a reason to refuse the obligation to return the loan.
Even if the above loan agreement is null and void, the defendant has a defense of ratification that the plaintiff ratified the above agreement, but the above loan agreement is valid.