1. Around December 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff’s Defendant under a loan agreement relating to the purchase price for the Canadian vehicles in Grandland. 20,900.

1. On December 26, 2012, an application for a loan was made to the Defendant on the same day under the name of the Plaintiff, and the fact that a loan of KRW 28.4 million was made under the name of the Plaintiff, interest rate of KRW 6.8% per annum, interest rate of overdue interest rate of KRW 24% per annum, period of 48 months, period of 48 months, and month of interest and interest on installment repayment (hereinafter “instant loan or loan contract”) was not disputed between the parties, or that a loan of KRW 677,442 per annum was made under the name of the Plaintiff, may be recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the evidence No.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant loan contract was concluded at will without authority by C, who is not authorized to represent the Plaintiff, through a tort that forges a seal imprint, etc., and the Plaintiff is not liable for the instant loan, and therefore, there is no obligation of the Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendant.

(2) The summary of the Defendant’s assertion (A) confirmed whether the Plaintiff actually intended to enter into the instant loan contract after receiving the instant loan application and prior to the confirmation of the loan, and whether the Plaintiff was aware of the agreement, as well as making a loan to the Plaintiff after going through the procedure of confirmation on the wired ship seeking the Plaintiff’s consent on the instant loan. Therefore, the instant loan contract is valid as it is concluded according to the Plaintiff’s intention, and therefore, the Plaintiff bears the Defendant’s obligation to pay the loan to the Defendant.

(B) Even if the Plaintiff did not have the intent to conclude the instant loan contract, there are reasonable grounds to believe that C has the right of representation, because the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression, and the resident registration certificate, and verified the authenticity thereof.

As such, the plaintiff is liable for loans to the defendant in accordance with the legal principles of expression agency.

(C) On October 2013, the Plaintiff became aware of the occurrence of the instant loan.