logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.18 2019가단22454
채무부존재확인의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. While attending a company G jointly operated by the representative E and its denial, the Plaintiff heard that he/she would be able to receive labor encouragement subsidy from E and F on May 2017, and issued an authorized certificate and passbook in the name of the Plaintiff to E and F.

B. On September 29, 2017, the Defendant received an application for a loan from the Plaintiff via the Internet, and transferred the loan to the Plaintiff’s bank account in the name of the Plaintiff at an interest rate of 26.9% per annum, overdue interest rate of 27.9% per annum, and due date of payment on September 29, 2019 (hereinafter “instant loan”). In the process, the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate issued by the Licensed Certification Authority was certified in the name of the Plaintiff.

C. Since then, the repayment of the instant loan was in arrears and thus, the benefit of time was lost, and the balance of the instant loan as of April 30, 2019 is KRW 1,044,446.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion issued an authorized certificate and passbook under the name of the plaintiff E and F, and only received the loan in this case by E, etc., and the plaintiff did not receive the loan in this case, and the defendant did not properly conduct the procedure of identification during the loan in this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff who is merely a title holder has no obligation to repay the principal and interest of this case to the defendant.

B. Determination 1) The fact that the instant loan agreement was concluded by means of electronic financial transaction through the certification of an authorized certificate issued under the name of the Plaintiff is recognized as above. In this regard, the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions (hereinafter “the Electronic Document Act”).

The Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions (hereinafter “Electronic Document Act”) and the Digital Signature Act stipulate the following:

(iii) Article 7 (Irre to have transmitted).

arrow