1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff alleged that he loaned money to the defendant, and sought payment of the remaining principal and interest of the loan.

2. Determination

A. Whether to grant a loan to the defendant or not (a loan agreement) is a dispute over the establishment of the petition by the defendant. Thus, it is not sufficient to recognize the establishment of the petition only with the statement No. 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the establishment of the petition, and it shall not be admitted as evidence.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff loaned money to the Defendant only with the statement of evidence Nos. 6 and 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 4 and 5, loans asserted by the Plaintiff are loans for the purchase of secondhand cars, and the Plaintiff’s employees in charge verify the intent of the loan by making phone numbers D as indicated in the application for the loan and transmitting the certification number to the above phone numbers on Nov. 2, 2018 in order to verify the Defendant’s intent of the loan. The Plaintiff’s employees in charge check the date of birth and directly preparing the loan agreement with the Defendant’s date of birth, type of purchase, amount of loan, and period. However, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff’s employees and the Defendant are not the employees in charge of the above mobile phone numbers, but the fact that the Defendant was a person who misrepresented.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion that he extended money to the defendant is without merit.

B. In full view of whether the Plaintiff entered into a loan contract with the Defendant’s agent, the facts that the Defendant issued the resident registration certificate to children and notified the account number of the head of the Tong can be acknowledged.

However, even according to the above evidence, the defendant can only issue a resident registration certificate and recognize the fact that the account number of the head of the Tong is known, by deeming that children need car.