beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 4, 2013, Ap-In Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ap-in Savings Bank”) entered into a loan agreement by receiving an application for a loan under the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant loan”) with a loan amount of KRW 29 million, 60 months, overdue interest rate of KRW 25.9% from the above bank’s Internet homepage, and paid KRW 28,565,00 to the national bank account under the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant loan”).
B. However, the instant loan was carried out according to the procedures, such as (i) the Plaintiff’s resident registration number and mobile phone number, and (ii) the Plaintiff’s consent to the entry of basic information such as mobile phone numbers, (iii) the entry of detailed information necessary for the loan, and the Plaintiff’s digital signature via the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate, (iv) the examination of the lending limit, etc. to the Plaintiff by the lending examiner, (v) the confirmation of the Plaintiff’s identity and the explanation of the loan via
C. After acquiring the claim for the instant loan from the non-party bank, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking the payment of the said loan amount under this court’s 2015 tea1752. On April 27, 2015, this court issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 40,186,420 and the amount of KRW 29 million calculated at the rate of 25.9% per annum from April 9, 2015 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the said payment order was finalized on May 15, 2015.
[Ground for recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or does not clearly dispute, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion did not obtain the loan of this case from the non-party bank, and was merely obtained the loan fraud by stealing the name from the non-party bank. Thus, the defendant's claim based on the payment order of this case.