beta
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. D’s request is made to He/she from June 15, 2017 to use the Plaintiff’s mobile phone (F) under the name of E, his/her father from June 15, 2017, and received a copy of the Plaintiff’s identification card by deceiving the Plaintiff around September 2017.
D also used the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate.
B. On November 7, 2017, D applied for a loan of KRW 3,000,000 in the name of the Plaintiff in the mobile lending method using the aforementioned Plaintiff’s mobile phone, and the Defendant consented thereto and concluded a loan contract.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan”). (c) The instant loan
The Defendant confirmed the Plaintiff’s personal information while entering into the instant loan contract, and certified that the applicant was the Plaintiff himself/herself by using mobile phones and authorized certificates, and deposited KRW 3,000,000 in the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff.
D is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months from the above court on December 11, 2018, which includes the fact that a mobile loan was received under the Plaintiff’s name in the crime.
[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's 3, 5, 7, Eul's 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that since the loan contract of this case was concluded with D by stealing the name of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not liable for the debt of this case.
D Prior to the conclusion of the instant loan contract in the Plaintiff’s name, according to Article 7(2)2 of the Electronic Document Act, where the received electronic document was sent by the addressee, who was in a relationship with the originator or his/her agent, and there is a reasonable ground to believe that the received electronic document was based on the will of 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. As seen earlier, the Defendant is entitled to act as the