The plaintiff's contract on August 20, 2007, February 4, 2008, and February 11, 2009 for low-income living stability loan to the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 20, 2007, the Defendant: (a) on February 4, 2008, KRW 1,590,000 (hereinafter “the first loan”); (b) on February 3, 2008, KRW 300,000 (hereinafter “the second loan”); and (c) on February 11, 2009, KRW 3,354,000 (hereinafter “the third loan”) granted a loan to the Plaintiff for the purpose of stabilizing low-income living; and (c) on each of the above loan agreements, the Plaintiff stated the Plaintiff as “applicant 1”; and (d) Plaintiff’s net B as “applicant 2.”

B. From June 21, 2008 to October 22, 2018, the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 561,380 among the loans of this case No. 3 and from April 25, 2019 to October 22, 2018

7. By December 25, 200, a total of KRW 407,670 out of the loans Nos. 1 and 2 of this case were repaid.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 9, 15, and 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the instant loan agreements is effective as the Plaintiff concluded the instant loan agreement by stealing the Plaintiff’s name and relevant documents without being delegated with any representation by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is seeking confirmation of the absence of each of the loan obligations. 2) The Defendant’s assertion delegated to B the authority to conclude the instant loan contract by giving the documents directly issued, such as the certificate of attendance, etc., and even if each of the instant loan agreements constitutes an unauthorized representation, the Plaintiff ratified the act of unauthorized Representation by performing the obligation under each of the instant loan agreements from June 2018 to July 2019.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to repay obligations under each of the instant loan agreements.

B. 1) The burden of proof as to whether each of the instant loan contracts is an unauthorized representative and the existence of the power of representation is against the defendant who asserts its effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da42195, Sept. 25, 2008). The above evidence and the following circumstances recognized by the statement in Gap No. 38, namely, each of the instant cases.