1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On July 7, 2014, a social loan company Apropha (hereinafter referred to as “Apropha loan”) concluded a loan agreement with a content as above (hereinafter referred to as “instant loan agreement”) by receiving a loan agreement in electronic form under the name of the defendant as of July 7, 2017, with a loan rate of KRW 5 million, interest rate of loan and overdue interest rate of KRW 34.9% per annum, and the expiration date of the loan agreement with a loan agreement with the defendant as of July 7, 2017, and by remitting five million won to the Daegu bank account under the name of the defendant as of the same day.

B. A loan transaction agreement received by a professional social loan in electronic form had a digital signature using the Defendant’s authorized certificate issued by a licensed certification authority, and at the time of lending, a payment certificate of long-term care insurance premiums was submitted under the Defendant’s name.

C. From April 28, 2015, the Defendant did not pay a loan from April 28, 2015, and as of April 27, 2015, the principal of the instant loan claims is KRW 4,971,352.

On September 30, 2015, Apropy social loan transferred the claim for the instant loan to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the claim at that time.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan contract of this case was lawfully concluded through the verification of the identity by an authorized certificate and the digital signature, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 4,971,352 and delay damages.

B. The Defendant’s assertion did not have concluded the instant loan agreement with a social loan created by Apropha.

The Defendant’s private village type B opened the Internet under the name of the Defendant and opened the Daegu Bank Account under the name of the Defendant with a copy of the identification card affixed to B, and the bank account was deposited. After opening the Daegu Bank Account under the name of the Defendant, B lent cash card to B. The loan contract of this case is in the name of the Defendant.