Plaintiff 1 and 15 others (Law Firm Woo, Attorney New Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Apropha Social Loan Co., Ltd. and four others (Attorney Jeong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 30, 2016

1. A. It is confirmed that, on May 19, 2015, there does not exist any obligation under the monetary loan agreement of Plaintiff 1 with respect to the social loan company, the Business Love loan company, and the Helish loan company, respectively.

B. It is confirmed that there does not exist any obligation under the monetary loan agreement of June 4, 2015 against the social loan company of Plaintiff 2, the business love loan company, and the original loan company, respectively.

C. It is confirmed that there does not exist any obligation based on the monetary loan agreement of July 8, 2015 against the Plaintiff 3’s social loan company, mountain and loan company, respectively.

D. It is confirmed that there does not exist any obligation under the monetary loan agreement of June 12, 2015 against the Plaintiff 4’s social loan company and the Love Loan Co., Ltd.

E. It is confirmed that Plaintiff 5’s obligation under the monetary loan agreement concluded on April 10, 2015 does not exist for Defendant Business Love Loan Co., Ltd., Ko Savings Bank, Industrial Bank, and Industrial Bank Loan Co., Ltd.

F. It is confirmed that there is no obligation under the monetary loan agreement of May 6, 2015 against the social loan company of Plaintiff 6 on May 6, 2015.

G. It is confirmed that there does not exist any obligation under the monetary loan agreement of July 7, 2015 against the social loan company of Plaintiff 7, the business love loan company, and the original financial loan company of Plaintiff 7, respectively.

H. It is confirmed that Plaintiff 8’s social loan companies, business lovve loan companies, capital loan companies, and mountain and loan companies, respectively, did not have any obligation under the monetary loan agreement on April 15, 2015.

I. It is confirmed that there is no obligation under the monetary loan agreement of May 14, 2015 against the social loan company of Plaintiff 9 on May 14, 2015.

(j) It is confirmed that there does not exist any obligation under the monetary loan agreement of May 22, 2015 against the social loan company and the Love Loan Co., Ltd. of Plaintiff 10, respectively.

(k) It is confirmed that there does not exist any obligation under the monetary loan agreement of June 23, 2015 against the social loan company and the Love Loan Co., Ltd. of Plaintiff 11 on June 23, 2015.

(l) It is confirmed that there is no obligation based on the monetary loan agreement of July 2, 2015 against the social loan company and the Business Love Loan Co., Ltd. of Plaintiff 12 on July 2, 2015.

(m) It is confirmed that there is no obligation under each of the monetary loan agreements as of July 25, 2015 against the Plaintiff 13’s social loan company and Defendant Business Love Loan Co., Ltd. as of July 24, 2015.

n. It is confirmed that there is no obligation under the monetary loan agreement of June 18, 2015 against the social loan company and the Love Loan Co., Ltd. of Plaintiff 14 on June 18, 2015.

(o) It is confirmed that there is no obligation based on the monetary loan agreement of May 7, 2015 to Plaintiff 15 on the social loan company, mountain and loan company, respectively.

(p) It is confirmed that there is no obligation under the monetary loan agreement of July 21, 2015 to Plaintiff 16 on the social loan corporation, business lovve loan corporation, and original licensing loan corporation, respectively.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants, as a financial company engaging in credit business, concluded each loan contract with each Plaintiff on the corresponding date of each claim between April 10, 2015 and July 25, 2015, through electronic transaction as shown in attached Table 1, as a financial company that is engaged in credit business (hereinafter “instant loan contract”), and deposited the relevant loan into the bank account in the name of each of the relevant Plaintiff.

B. At the time of entering into each of the above lending contracts with the Defendants, the contracting party, who met the Plaintiff, accessed the Defendant’s computer system through an authorized certificate under the name of each Plaintiff, and accurately entered the Plaintiff’s bank account number, password, and password, and sent the Plaintiff’s identification card by facsimile to the Defendants.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. The plaintiffs' assertion on the grounds of claim

The loan contract of this case was conducted with an authorized certificate at will on the basis of personal information related to financial transactions, which was obtained by deceiving and obtaining the plaintiffs that a third party in bad name had had been employed. The plaintiffs did not conclude a loan agreement with the defendants as alleged, and therefore the defendant did not have any obligation to confirm it.

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) The effects of identification through authorized certificates in electronic commerce;

Article 7(2)2 of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions (hereinafter “Electronic Document Act”) provides that “Where an addressee has transmitted an electronic document received by a person who has justifiable grounds to believe that it was based on the will of the originator or his/her agent in connection with the originator or his/her agent, the addressee of the electronic document may regard the expression of intent contained in the electronic document as the originator’s act.” Article 11 provides that “in conducting electronic commerce, matters concerning digital signatures shall be governed by the Digital Signature Act,” and Article 18-2 of the Digital Signature Act provides that “where other Acts restrict or exclude the identification of the principal by using an authorized certificate, a licensed certification authority may verify his/her identity by using an authorized certificate issued pursuant to the provisions of this Act.”

The purpose of the Electronic Document Act is to clarify the legal relationship of electronic documents and electronic transactions, to ensure the safety and reliability of electronic documents and electronic transactions, and to create the foundation for facilitating their use (Article 1). In light of such legislative purpose and purport, in transactions by electronic documents, where a financial institution verifies the identity of the other party to the transaction through an authorized certificate, barring special circumstances, such as the issuance of an authorized certificate by forgery or other wrongful means by a third party, it constitutes “where the received electronic document has been transmitted by a person who has justifiable grounds to believe that it would be based on the will of the originator or his/her agent” pursuant to Article 7(2)2 of the Electronic Document Act, and in such cases, the legal effect arising from the transactions by electronic documents shall be deemed effective on the account of the nominal party.

B. Whether the instant authorized certificate was issued in an unlawful manner without resorting to the intent of the Plaintiffs

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged according to the contents of Gap evidence 2 through 7, Eul evidence 4 to 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

A) Invitation to commit the instant crime, such as the fraud of the Bophishing fraud group

The non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 6, and the non-party 7 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 7") divided their respective roles on the date of 2015 and provided them with financial transaction-related information that would lead them to work for an unspecified number of women. Based on this, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 5, the non-party 6, and the non-party 7 were provided with an authorized certificate and conspired to divide profits therefrom

B) Details of the loan made by Plaintiff 13

In accordance with the preceding paragraph, around July 16, 2015, the non-party 4 applied to the non-party 1, the above non-party 3 mobile phone loan account in the name of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, and the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the defendant 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the defendant 1, the non-party 3, the defendant 1, the defendant 3, the defendant 1,

C) Details of loans extended in the name of Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 (Plaintiff 1 through 12, 14, 16).

The instant Bophishing Fraud made it known to the above plaintiffs (Plaintiff 1 through 12, 14 through 16) that they were employed in a virtual company by means of the public offering of the above plaintiffs (the plaintiffs 1 through 16) and the public offering of the above paragraph (Ga). Based on the personal information and data such as resident registration number, address, mobile phone number, driver's license number, photograph, account number, security card number, and password of an authorized certificate number, they obtained personal information and data such as the personal information and data, and obtained a new certificate in the name of the plaintiffs directly regardless of the plaintiffs' own will, and issued a mobile card. After receiving a mobile card, they applied for the Internet loan using each of the above plaintiffs' authorized certificates as if the above plaintiffs applied for the loan, and deceiving the employees in charge of the above defendants by using each of the above plaintiffs' respective authorized certificates as stated in the purport of the claim. Accordingly, they obtained the money stated in the corresponding column 1 as a loan immediately from the above defendants.

2) Determination

According to the above facts, an authorized certificate in the name of the plaintiffs used to conclude a loan contract by electronic document with the defendants without being based on the intent of the plaintiffs, and without being based on the employment of the third party, by deceiving the plaintiffs on employment loan, and obtained them directly without the awareness of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, each of the above loan contracts with the defendants is concluded by a third party through an authorized certificate issued by the third party in an unlawful manner, and thus it cannot be deemed a contract concluded by an electronic transaction with the intent of the plaintiffs. Thus, the obligation to return the loan, which is its legal effect, shall not belong to the plaintiffs.

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

1) Main Safety Defenses by Defendant Ahion Social Loan Co., Ltd. and Business Love Loan Co., Ltd. (Defendant 1, 2)

A) The assertion

On October 27, 2015, Plaintiff 1 filed a lawsuit seeking return of unjust enrichment against Defendant 1 and 2, which was repaid under the instant loan agreement, and currently the said lawsuit is continuing to be Seoul Central District Court 2015Da5343851. Accordingly, Plaintiff 1’s claim for confirmation of the existence of the obligation of this case against the said Defendants is not a valid means for direct resolution of the dispute, and thus, it should be dismissed as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

B) Determination

According to the Eul evidence No. 1, although the plaintiff 1 paid 10,00,000 won to the defendant Busan District Court (the defendant 5), the plaintiff 1 filed a lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment for the payment of the above money and damages for delay from July 29, 2015 to the date of full payment, and the above lawsuit is pending in Seoul Central District Court 2015Da53851, it can be acknowledged that the above lawsuit is pending in Seoul Central District Court. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff 1 filed a performance lawsuit seeking the return of the money paid based on the loan obligations for which the non-existence of the lawsuit in this case against the defendant 1 and 2 is pending in the lawsuit, and there is no evidence to support that the lawsuit is pending. Thus, the above defense by the defendant 1 and 2 is without merit.

2) Legal assertions made by Defendant Ahion Loans Co., Ltd., Business Love Loans Co., Ltd. (Defendant 1, 2, and 3)

A) The assertion

Article 7 (2) 2 of the Electronic Document Act (where the addressee of an electronic document is deemed to have transmitted the electronic document by the person who has justifiable grounds to believe that the received electronic document was based on the will of the originator or his/her agent, the addressee may regard the expression of intent contained in the electronic document as the act of the originator and act as the act of the originator, and Article 18-2 of the Digital Signature Act provides that the confirmation of the identity may be made by means of an authorized certificate. In light of the legislative intent and contents of the aforementioned Act, in cases where the Defendants, as seen in this case, verify the identity of the sender through an authorized certificate, have justifiable grounds to believe that the electronic document was prepared and transmitted by the sender, the addressee may perform a legal act according to the declaration of intent contained in the electronic document, and therefore, the validity of the legal act shall not be denied.

B) Determination

In light of the legislative purpose and purport of the Act, Article 7(2)2 of the Electronic Document Act and Article 18-2 of the Digital Signature Act, which the said Defendants invoked, where a financial institution confirms the identity of the opposite contractual party through an authorized certificate in a transaction by means of an electronic document, barring special circumstances such as the issuance of an authorized certificate by a third party, it constitutes “the case where the received electronic document has been transmitted by the person who has justifiable grounds to believe that it was based on the will of the originator or his/her agent,” and thus, the fact that the legal effect of the transaction by the said electronic document is a clause that can be effectively reverted to the title holder, barring any special circumstances such as the issuance of the authorized certificate by

However, as in this case, even if a third party voluntarily obtained an authorized certificate under the name of the party to the transaction and made an expression of intent in trade by stealing such an authorized certificate without any stimulation or assistance of the party to the transaction, such an authorized certificate is used as a tool for confirmation of the party, only the fact that such authorized certificate was used as a tool for confirmation of the party to the transaction, does not constitute a provision regarding the existence of the intent of the plaintiffs, who are the nominal owner of the transaction, or a provision regarding the contract, is not deemed to have been abolished in relation to the electronic transaction, on the ground that the Civil Act

3) Claims by the Defendant Ko Savings Bank, Industrial Complex and Loan Co., Ltd. (Defendant 4,5)

A) The assertion

The above defendants confirmed their identity by using an authorized certificate in the lending transaction with the plaintiffs, and confirmed their identity by using a mobile phone under the plaintiffs' names, received an electronic contract directly prepared and signed by the plaintiffs, and deposited the loan to the plaintiffs' passbook that confirmed their real names. Therefore, the above lending transaction should be deemed to be by the plaintiffs' intention.

Even if not, the Plaintiffs should be held liable for the loan transaction of this case since they conspired with the instant Bosing Fraud or allowed them to use their names.

B) Determination

On the other hand, the facts that the loan of this case was made through the process as alleged by the above Defendants are shown in the facts of recognition, but in light of these facts, the Bophishing Fraud of this case obtained the plaintiffs' personal information necessary for financial transactions by deceiving them to find employment, opened a scamphone based on this, opened a scamphone, and made an electronic contract in the plaintiffs' name, and made the loans to be deposited into the plaintiffs' passbook for the purpose of defraudation, so such facts alone do not constitute a party to the loan of this case. Further, the above facts alone do not constitute a party to the loan of this case, and there is no evidence that the plaintiffs conspired with the Bophishing Fraud of this case or allowed them to use their names. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Ultimately, since a monetary loan agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants on each date stated in the purport of the claim is not based on the plaintiffs' intent, it is not effective against the plaintiffs, so there is no debt as a legal effect. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking confirmation of the absence of debt against the defendants who asserted the existence of the debt is justified as a claim for confirmation.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Yu Young-il