1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. On the basis of the conjunctive claim added at the trial, the defendant 3,000.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the Internet loan agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”) under the name of the Defendant, which is KRW 6 million, interest rate of KRW 31.9% per annum, and interest rate of arrears rate of KRW 34.9% per annum on the Plaintiff’s Internet homepage with the digital signature using an authorized certificate through an electronic document. On the same day, the Plaintiff deposited the loan amount of KRW 6 million with the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant and carried out the instant loan.

B. The Plaintiff’s Internet loan, such as the instant loan, is implemented according to the procedures, such as ① identification of the applicant for the loan via a mobile phone, ② digital signature on the application for the loan of the Plaintiff’s Internet website via an authorized certificate, ③ facsimile delivery of documents necessary for the loan, ④ confirmation of the applicant for the loan through a telephone, ⑤ remittance of the loan to the account under the name of the applicant for the loan, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the loan agreement in this case was concluded with digital signature using the Defendant’s authorized certificate, and thus, it was effective in accordance with the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Digital Signature Act, Electronic Documents and Framework Act on Electronic Commerce, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the principal and interest of this case to the Plaintiff regardless of the actual applicant. 2) Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the loan agreement in this case was concluded with the Defendant’s mother B in collusion with the Defendant’s mother-child B in order to make a fraudulent use of the Defendant’s name, and the Plaintiff’s negligence in the course

B. Article 3(2) of the Digital Signature Act provides that “Where a certified digital signature exists, the relevant digital signature is the signature, signature, or seal of the Signatory, and the relevant electronic document is the same.