1. Each of the Plaintiff’s Defendants did not have any obligation under the Plaintiff’s monetary loan agreement on July 11, 2014.

1. The facts under the underlying facts may be found either by a dispute between the parties or by the statements in Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3.

On July 11, 2014, the Defendants concluded a loan agreement with a financial company that engages in credit business and a person who is named as the Plaintiff on July 11, 2014, which set a loan of KRW 3 million per annum, interest and delay damages, and KRW 34.9% per annum, and paid the relevant loan to the company bank account in the name of the Plaintiff.

B. At the time of entering into each of the above lending contracts with the Defendants, the contracting party, who met the Plaintiff, accessed the Plaintiff’s computer system through an authorized certificate under the Plaintiff’s name, and accurately entered the Plaintiff’s bank account number, password, and password, and transmitted the Plaintiff’s identification card by facsimile to the Defendants.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of the claim is that the loan contract of this case was conducted with an authorized certificate at will on the basis of personal information related to financial transactions, which was obtained by a third party by deceiving the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not conclude a loan agreement with the Defendants as alleged, and thus, the Plaintiff does not have any obligation accordingly. Therefore, the Plaintiff’

3. Determination

A. Article 7(2)2 of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions (hereinafter “Electronic Document Act”) provides, “Where the received electronic document has been sent by the addressee to a person who has justifiable grounds to believe that it was based on the will of the originator or his/her agent by virtue of the relationship with the originator or his/her agent, the addressee of the electronic document may regard the expression of intent contained in the electronic document as the originator’s act.” Article 11 of the same Act provides, “In conducting electronic commerce, matters concerning digital signatures shall be subject to digital signature.”