beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s contract for a monetary loan of KRW 30,000,000 against Defendant D Co., Ltd. on June 13, 2016 is based on the said contract.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. While Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) did not face with the Plaintiff, each of the Plaintiff’s mobile phone and credit card is certified by himself, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license copy, abstract of resident registration card, health care insurance premium payment confirmation certificate, and health insurance coverage certificate, respectively, were confirmed, and the Plaintiff’s signature was given a loan contract, which is “30 million won in loan amount, June 13, 2016, contract date, June 13, 2016, and June 13, 2019.” The loan interest rate and overdue interest rate of 27.9% in each year, respectively, by means of sending the loan contract by mail, and depositing KRW 30 million in the account of the F organization (Account Number) in the Plaintiff’s name.
B. In the absence of face-to-face with the Plaintiff, Defendant B loaned nine million won to the Plaintiff in a manner that, by using the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate, the Plaintiff’s digital signature is “the maximum amount of loans and the amount of initial use, nine million won, each of the contract date, June 10, 201, the expiration date, June 10, 2021, each of which is 27.9% per annum for loan interest rate and overdue interest rate, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, copy of the Plaintiff’s license, the certificate of payment of long-term care insurance premium, the certificate of payment of health insurance coverage premium, and the certificate of payment of health insurance eligibility.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Eul 1 to 5 evidence, Eul 1 to 5, Eul 1 to 5, 8 and 9 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s wife concluded a monetary loan agreement with Defendant B by forging the Plaintiff’s signature with Defendant B and each Plaintiff by using the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate, and by using the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate.
Since each of the above monetary loan agreements is null and void, there is no monetary loan obligations against the Defendants under each of the above monetary loan agreements.
The plaintiff, in the legal brief dated September 17, 2019, deposited each loan into the account in the name of the plaintiff, but immediately deposited to H, etc.