beta
Text
1. There is no debt of KRW 7,880,333 of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant Love Loan Co., Ltd.
Reasons
1. On September 12, 2008, the Plaintiff reported the marriage with B on September 12, 2008. On January 17, 2014, the Plaintiff died and reported the qualified acceptance as the head of Suwon District Court Branch Branch 2014 Mo20017 regarding the deceased’s inheritance, and on April 30, 2014, the said court accepted it.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Love Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Love Loan”).
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff asserts that the loan obligation is nonexistent, on April 5, 2013, and May 24, 2013, the principal and interest of the loan amounted to KRW 7,880,333 as of each of the Defendant Business Love loan (hereinafter “instant loan 1”). The Plaintiff asserts that the instant loan agreement has no effect against the Plaintiff, since it does not have any effect on the Plaintiff.
(2) In the first loan of this case, Defendant Business Love loan asserts that the first loan of this case received the Plaintiff’s principal transaction account details by facsimile, confirmed whether the Plaintiff was the principal through mobile phone certification, and remitted the loan to the bank account under the Plaintiff’s name. The Plaintiff is deemed to have concluded a direct loan contract with Defendant Business Love loan or granted the right of representation to Defendant B who entered into a loan contract with Defendant Business Love loan. Thus, the first loan agreement of this case is effective for the Plaintiff.
B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged prior to the determination, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, namely, ① since the loan No. 1 was between the plaintiff and the married couple at the time of the instant loan No. 1, it appears that the Plaintiff could have easily been issued the details of the Plaintiff’s main transaction account. ② At the time of the instant loan No. 1, the Defendant U.S. Love loan was confirmed through a cell phone certification service under the Plaintiff’s name through credit information company (NICE)