1. The Plaintiff’s principal amounting to KRW 23,00,000 based on a monetary loan for consumption as of March 16, 2018, and interest thereon.

1. Basic facts

A. An agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the smarto debate on March 16, 2018, which was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on 23,00,000 won of loans, 60 months of loans, 13.9% per annum on loans, 13.9% per annum on overdue interest rate, 24% per month on repayment of principal and interest, and 533,978 repayment method

(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). B.

The instant loan agreement was a non-face loan made by the Defendant’s mobile web loan application. At that time, the Defendant sent a certification number to the Plaintiff’s mobile phone name (E) and followed the process of identification by verifying the identification number entered.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 7-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the loan agreement of this case is null and void since F, who is the plaintiff, has made a fraudulent use of the plaintiff's name.

As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant loan agreement with the Plaintiff is valid in accordance with Article 7 (2) 2 of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions (hereinafter “Electronic Documents Act”), since the instant loan agreement was made on non-face-to-face-to-face electronic financial transactions, through the mobile phone, driver’s license, and the financial account number under the Plaintiff’s name at that time.

3. In light of the provisions of the Special Act on the Prevention of Loss Caused by Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud and Refund of Loss (hereinafter “Telecommunications Fraud Refund Act”), the Enforcement Decree thereof, the legislative intent and purpose of the Financial Services Commission’s notification, necessity of protecting victims, etc., such as the following: (a) an electronic financial business operator who intends to conduct an unfaced electronic financial transaction is a method prescribed in the Telecommunications Fraud Refund Act, the Act on the Refund of Loss by Telecommunications, the Financial Services Commission’s notification, etc.; (b) a user’s telephone (including a mobile phone) registered with a financial company; or (c) a copy