1. The Plaintiff’s principal obligation of KRW 3,00,000 according to the lending terms on March 21, 2013 against the Defendant, and the said principal obligation.

1. On March 21, 2013, a loan transaction contract (the instant loan contract) was concluded on March 21, 2016 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on March 21, 2013, with a loan of KRW 3,00,000, interest of KRW 39% per annum, and the expiration date.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since B living together with the Plaintiff entered into the instant loan contract by stealing the name of the Plaintiff with the passbook, resident registration, and certificate of personal seal impression in the Plaintiff’s custody, there is no loan obligation against the Defendant.

B. The Defendant’s loan contract of this case was concluded through the process of identification with the Plaintiff’s cell phone certification. The Plaintiff remitted the loan to the passbook in the Plaintiff’s name, and even if the Plaintiff was abused the Plaintiff’s name, the account password is required to withdraw the loan, and thus, it can be deemed that the loan contract of this case was made in collusion with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff as the debtor denies the fact that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the claim, the defendant as the creditor bears the burden of assertion and proof as to the facts

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da17821 delivered on July 26, 2002, etc.). However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff directly concluded the instant loan contract with the Defendant solely on the basis of the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 submitted by the Defendant.

B. Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6, Eul concluded the instant loan contract by appropriating the Plaintiff’s name with the Plaintiff’s seal, passbook, resident registration certificate, and certificate of personal seal impression while using the mobile phone opened in the Plaintiff’s name. In such a way, it is recognized that Eul concluded the instant loan contract by citing the Plaintiff’s seal, passbook, resident registration certificate, and personal seal impression, and that the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Plaintiff for fraud, forgery

C. Ultimately, it is true.