beta
Text
1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant on October 14, 2015 does not exist.
2.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. On October 14, 2015, the Plaintiff did not enter into a loan agreement with the Defendant for KRW 10,000,000,000. The instant loan agreement was concluded with the Plaintiff without any title, and thus, the Plaintiff does not bear any obligation under the instant loan agreement.
B. On October 14, 2015, the Defendant: (a) upon entering into the instant loan agreement, verified the authenticity of the Plaintiff’s resident registration; and (b) obtained the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate on October 14, 2015; (c) performed the Plaintiff’s identification with a mobile phone (C); and (c) remitted the loan to the Nonghyup Bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, the instant loan agreement is an effective contract entered into according to the Plaintiff’s own intent.
In addition, after the conclusion of the instant loan contract, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 2,816,428 on a total of nine occasions from November 20, 2015 to July 20, 2016 as the principal and interest of loan, and in particular, KRW 309,119 as of March 20, 2016 was paid directly by the Plaintiff to the virtual account, and the Plaintiff bears the obligation under the instant loan contract. Even if the instant loan contract is null and void, the Plaintiff bears the obligation to return unjust enrichment for the amount equivalent to the amount of the loan as the owner of the agricultural bank account that the Defendant deposited the loan, and was involved in B’s tort, such as informing the Nong Bank number to B, and remitting the loan upon B’s request, and thus, is liable to compensate for damages arising from the tort.
2. Determination:
A. In light of the following circumstances, as to whether the validity of the instant loan contract was effective according to the Plaintiff’s intent, each of the statements in the health room, Gap’s 3 through 7 (including paper numbers), the Daegu-dong community service center, and the NH Bank’s response to each of the response to the submission of financial transaction information to the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s name as to the instant loan contract.