1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On June 11, 2015, the Defendant borrowed 65 million won from the Plaintiff at an interest rate of 13.4% per annum between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on June 11, 2015, 200 won per annum, 28.4% per annum on overdue interest, 48 months during the lending period, and 1,756,719 won per month on the interest and interest on installment repayment.

After that, the Defendant lost the benefit of time due to nonperformance, such as the default of principal, and the remaining principal of the Defendant’s loan as of July 28, 2015 is KRW 63,959,171.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above principal of the loan amounting to KRW 63,959,171 and damages for delay after July 29, 2015.

B. The Defendant did not have concluded a loan contract with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s application for the loan (the evidence No. 1; hereinafter “instant loan application”) asserted by the Plaintiff is merely a misappropriation of the Defendant’s identification card and personal information, and thus, the Defendant does not have a duty to pay the principal and interest of loan to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. If the seal imprint of the person signing the document affixed to the document is affixed with his seal, barring any special circumstance, it shall be presumed that the authenticity of the document is created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person signing the document, barring special circumstances. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed, the authenticity of the document shall be presumed. However, if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was carried out by a person other than the person signing the document, the document presenter shall bear the burden of proving that the act of affixing the seal is based on a legitimate title delegated by

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da4151 delivered on August 24, 1993, etc.). B.

We examine the case in this case.

The fact that the Defendant did not affix the seal to the application form for the instant loan is also recognized by the Plaintiff. The evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is delegated by the third party (B) to the Defendant’s legitimate authority, and the Defendant’s application for the instant loan.