1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) 11,000.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 6, 2015, under the Plaintiff’s name, a loan contract was made with a content of lending KRW 11,000,000 from the Defendant on April 6, 2018 and at an annual interest rate of 29.9% (hereinafter “instant loan contract”). The Defendant wired KRW 11,00,000 to the Nonghyup Bank account in the Plaintiff’s name.

B. On April 7, 2015, the Plaintiff sent the documents by sending the copy of the resident registration certificate and the copy of the passbook to the Plaintiff who was unable to use his/her name by telephone. However, if the Plaintiff carried out and withdrawn the loan, the Plaintiff reported the loan to the Gwangju Mine Police Station.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan contract of this case was concluded by stealing the name of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff does not bear an obligation under the loan contract of this case to the Defendant.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the loan contract of this case was concluded with the Plaintiff’s personal information and through the process of identification through an authorized certificate. Even if it is not so, the loan contract of this case is valid on the ground that there is a justifiable ground to believe that the deceased was exercising his authority as the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the instant loan.

3. Determination

A. Article 7(2) of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions applicable to electronic documents used in electronic financial transactions (hereinafter “Framework Act on Electronic Commerce”) provides that the addressee of the electronic documents may regard the expression of intent contained in the electronic documents as the originator’s act, in cases where the received electronic documents have been transmitted by a person who has justifiable grounds to believe that it was based on the will of the originator or his/her agent, in view of relations with the originator or his/her agent.