1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Facts of recognition

While having been employed in a singing room, the Plaintiff started teaching service from August 26, 2018 with D, and was living together with D on September 21, 2018, and reported marriage on September 21, 2018.

On the other hand, D, without obtaining the consent or delegation from the Plaintiff on September 16, 2018, installed the Defendant’s display room on the Plaintiff’s mobile phone and connected it to the Defendant’s computer network. Then, D, by entering the certification number sent to the Plaintiff’s mobile phone via “E self-certification service”, entered the Plaintiff’s name and submitted a loan transaction contract, which is an electronic document in which the Plaintiff’s name, resident registration number, address, etc. were entered.

D As above, upon obtaining the approval of the loan of KRW 3 million from the Defendant, the said loan was remitted to the F Bank Account (G) in the name of the Plaintiff on the same day.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant loan”). D Spons women’s voice in the process of the instant loan, pretending to be the Plaintiff, and made a call between the Defendant’s counselor and the Defendant’s counselor on the guidance of terms and conditions and the consent to provide information, etc. after approving the loan.

On October 22, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against D as fraud regarding the instant loan, and D was prosecuted for the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch on December 13, 2018 (No. 2018Dadan1296) and was sentenced to imprisonment for two years from the above court on July 23, 2019, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, which is obvious fact in this court, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole oral argument that the plaintiff's mobile phone should be contacted to the bubs, and then borrowed this case by using the plaintiff's mobile phone without the plaintiff's consent. The defendant could have known that he was the male's voice during the process of confirming himself by telephone conversations with D and could have known that he was not the plaintiff.