logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.18 2019가단21512
채무부존재확인 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company running a credit business after completing registration in accordance with the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users.

B. On May 22, 2017, the Defendant received an application for a loan from the Plaintiff via the Internet, and loaned KRW 15,00,000 at an annual interest rate of KRW 27.9% per annum, interest rate of arrears rate of KRW 27.9% per annum, and due date of payment on May 22, 2019, remitted the loan to the E-bank account in the Plaintiff’s name. During the lending process, the Defendant’s personal certification using the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate and cellular phone and digital signature via the said authorized certificate was conducted.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan agreement”). 【The ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff issued an authorized certificate and passbook in the name of the Plaintiff from F and G. The Plaintiff merely obtained the instant loan by using it by F, etc., and the Plaintiff did not receive the instant loan, and the Defendant did not properly conduct the instant loan process.

Although the defendant has performed his own authentication through the plaintiff's mobile phone, his mobile phone also opened F and G.

Therefore, since the loan contract of this case is null and void, the plaintiff does not bear an obligation under the loan contract of this case against the defendant.

나. 피고의 주장 피고는 원고 명의의 공인인증서와 코리아크레딧뷰로(KCB)의 휴대폰본인인증 송부서비스를 통하여 본인인증절차를 거친 원고 명의의 전자계약서를 수신한 다음, 금융기관에서 실명 확인을 한 원고 명의의 계좌로 대출금을 송금해 주었으므로, 이 사건 대출계약은 유효하다.

3. Determination

A. Article 7(2)2 of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions (hereinafter “Electronic Document Act”) provides that “the received electronic document is based on the originator or his/her agent.”

arrow