1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was issued with one credit card (C) from the Defendant, and on June 18, 2013, a loan of KRW 5.5 million with the Defendant’s above credit card (the card theory, interest rate rate rate rate rate rate rate rate rate, and due date rate rate rate rate of June 25, 2015) was implemented.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the above loan was made by a third party’s application and suffered damage equivalent to the above loan, and filed a criminal complaint with an investigation agency for fraud. However, the prosecutor D of the resident branch office of the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office suspended prosecution on September 24, 2013 on the ground that the whereabouts of the suspect E is unknown.

C. On the other hand, on October 18, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant with the content that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10,080,000 from the Defendant at interest rate of KRW 9.9% per annum, 60 months during the loan period (on December 5, 2013, the first repayment date; November 5, 2018, the maturity date); and the repayment of the existing debt including the credit card loan debt (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant contract was a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness due to the Plaintiff’s pashion (i.e., unfair legal act) and sought confirmation of invalidity against the Defendant.

The unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act is established when there is a significant imbalance between payment and benefit in return, and the transaction which has lost balance is made through stuff, rashness, or inexperience of the victimized party. Even if the victimized party was in an imminent state, there was no intention to use it, i.e.,, the intent to use it, knowing the circumstances on the part of the victimized party.

If there is no significant imbalance between the payment and the consideration, it is not an unfair legal act of Article 104 of the Civil Code.

b) any;