1. The Plaintiff’s loan to Defendant G G Co., Ltd. amounting to one million won under a monetary loan agreement concluded on February 7, 2017.

1. The gist of the cause of the claim is that the Plaintiff did not enter into a monetary loan agreement with the Defendants, such as the entries in the purport of the claim, and all of them was concluded by N using the Plaintiff’s name and thus invalid against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff seeks confirmation of the non-existence of each borrowed debt.

2. According to the Plaintiff’s certificate Nos. 1 through 5 (where a certificate has a number, the indication is omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply)’s determination on the claim against Defendant G G Co., Ltd., the Defendant G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant G”) loaned KRW 1 million to the Plaintiff as the debtor on February 7, 2017. At the time, the loan transaction contract, personal information utilization agreement, Plaintiff’s driver’s license, copy of the Plaintiff’s license, and resident registration record card were submitted, and the Defendant remitted the loan to the Plaintiff’s Obank account as stated in the above contract.

However, such evidence and facts alone are insufficient to deem that Eul evidence Nos. 1 (Loan Agreement) and Eul 2 (personal information utilization consent) were prepared by the plaintiff (in the absence of evidence to prove that part of the paper is the plaintiff, there is no other evidence to prove that the part of the paper is the plaintiff). Thus, it cannot be used as evidence as to the fact that the plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement.

In addition, in this case where the plaintiff asserts that he had obtained loan name, necessary documents, bankbooks, etc. by misappropriation or fraud, the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff had concluded a monetary loan contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s debt of KRW 1 million pursuant to the monetary loan agreement dated February 7, 2017 against Defendant G does not exist, and as long as the said Defendant contests this, the Plaintiff has the interest to confirm it.

3. Determination as to claims against the remaining Defendants

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant G are excluded.