1. The principal of the debt loan under the loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on February 10, 2015 is KRW 3 million, interest, and delay damages.

The Plaintiff asserts that a loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on February 10, 2015, the loan amount of KRW 3 million, the expiration date of which is August 25, 2017, and the interest rate of KRW 34.9% per annum (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) is invalid as it concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant by opening a passbook in the Plaintiff’s name by misrepresenting the Plaintiff and opening a passbook in the Plaintiff’s name, thereby obtaining an authorized certificate, and disclosing the mobile phone in the Plaintiff’s name by stealing the Plaintiff’s name.

In this regard, the Defendant presented an identification card to G that the Plaintiff applied for identification card in order to obtain loan from the lending company code, and the instant contract was concluded after undergoing the Plaintiff’s identification procedure as the Plaintiff’s mobile phone, and thus, it claimed that the Plaintiff participated in a tort under the instant contract or constitutes an act of expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

According to each statement of Gap evidence (including the paper number) 8, G opened a bank account by using the resident registration certificate received while soliciting the plaintiff as a side business, opened the H bank account in the name of the plaintiff, opened the I mobile phone and used it, and obtained a loan from J lending, etc.; the defendant also forged a loan transaction contract around February 10, 2015 and submitted it by facsimile and remitted three million won to the above H bank account; G is recognized as having been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for two years in Changwon District Court 2018Da3129 in the criminal act including the above fact, and there is no counter-proof.

Thus, the contract of this case was concluded between G and H bank account opened by using the Plaintiff’s identification card and it was invalid for the Plaintiff. The statement that “A” was changed to the Plaintiff to obtain a loan on the sole ground that G had been paid with the loan company code as stated in the evidence No. 4, which the Plaintiff granted to G any power of attorney in relation to the loan with the Defendant.

or participation in G's tort cannot be deemed to have been engaged in

Supreme Court Decision 2017Da257395 Decided March 29, 2018 alleged by the defendant is an electronic document and electronic document.