1. The Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant by means of a loan transaction contract on May 16, 2006 and interest thereon;

1. On May 6, 201, around 201, the basic facts B received a summary order of KRW 3,00,000,000 on September 3, 201, on the charge that around May 3, 2011, the Defendant received a written confirmation of the change of loan conditions from the Defendant by mail, and prepared each column after stating the name of the Plaintiff in the debtor’s name, and then private person was given a summary order of KRW 3,00,000,000 on the following.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have concluded a loan agreement with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff concluded a loan agreement in the name of the Plaintiff by stealing the name of the Plaintiff.

Since there is no loan contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, there is no obligation under the loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on May 16, 2006.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant submitted the loan application document through the loan brokerage company, received the documents necessary for the loan by facsimile, and transferred the amount of loan to the Plaintiff’s account after the loan examination in the mobile phone in the Plaintiff’s name. As such, the loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was concluded by the Plaintiff or by the lawful representation of B.

C. There is no evidence to prove that the basic contract for a loan for consumption (Evidence A1-1) and the certificate of change of the terms and conditions of a loan (Evidence A-2) dated May 6, 201 in the name of the Plaintiff on May 16, 2006 under the name of the Plaintiff on the market was prepared by the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had the power to represent the agreement for a loan for consumption under the name of the Plaintiff B.

Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that the loan transaction agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was effective, so it is difficult to confirm that there is no obligation based on the loan transaction agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and since the defendant contests this, there is a benefit of confirmation.

3...