The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a person with hearing disability of Grade 2 who is unable to communicate with the general public in addition to the method of using sign language, handphone text, etc.

On July 2017, the Plaintiff first became aware of Nonparty E, who operated the D convenience store located in the Ssung City around 2017.

E around August 31, 2017, without the Plaintiff’s consent, filed an application for a non-faced online loan with the purport that the Plaintiff voluntarily applied for a loan to an employee in the Defendant’s name in the mobile service without the Plaintiff’s consent, and the Plaintiff at the time applied for a non-faced online loan to the effect that the Plaintiff

The above-mentioned non-face online loan application was signed electronically by the certificate of official seal in the name of the plaintiff himself/herself, and the certificate of acquisition and loss of health insurance qualification for the plaintiff and the certificate of payment of health insurance premiums were submitted for the purpose of proof of employment.

The Defendant-in-charge remitted KRW 2,00,000 to the Plaintiff’s account indicated at the time of lending the above E’s loan application. E withdrawn money from the said account using the password of the passbook (hereinafter “instant loan”). E was accused of the Plaintiff due to the above fraud, etc. and was detained on November 13, 2019 after having been sentenced to a conviction of six months of imprisonment from the Seoul Northern Site method.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 14, and the plaintiff's loan of this case as to the ground of claim of the whole oral argument is not a loan application made by the plaintiff's act or intent but by E's criminal act using the plaintiff's hearing impairment, etc., and therefore there is no obligation of loans based on the loan of this case against the defendant of this case.

Article 7(2)2 of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions (hereinafter “Electronic Document Act”) provides that an addressee shall be the addressee’s relationship with the originator or his/her agent.