In cases where an electronic document was sent by a person whose identity was confirmed by an authorized certificate issued by a licensed certification authority in an electronic financial transaction, whether it falls under Article 7(2)2 of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions, even if it was written and transmitted against his/her will (affirmative in principle), and whether the addressee of the electronic document is entitled to do legal act by viewing that the addressee of the electronic document is the originator’s expression of intent contained in the electronic document, even without going through additional procedures such

Articles 1 and 5(1) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; Articles 1, 7(2)2, and 11 of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions; Articles 1, 2 subparag. 8, 3(2), and 18-2 of the Digital Signature Act;

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Sang-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

New Bank Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeongpyeong, Attorneys Jeon Sung-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na68753 Decided November 17, 2015

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 5(1) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act provides that Article 7 of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions (hereinafter “Electronic Documents Act”) shall apply to electronic documents used for electronic financial transactions. Article 7(2)2 of the Electronic Document Act provides that “Where an electronic document received is sent by a addressee through a person who has justifiable grounds to believe that the electronic document is based on the will of the originator or his/her agent by virtue of his/her relationship with the originator or his/her agent,” the addressee of the electronic document may regard his/her expression of intent included in the electronic document as the originator’s act. Article 11 of the Electronic Document Act provides that matters concerning electronic signatures among electronic transactions shall be governed by the Digital Signature Act. Article 3(2) of the Digital Signature Act provides that “where a digital signature exists, the relevant digital signature shall be signed, sealed, or sealed by the Signatory, and its content shall be presumed not to have been modified after the digital signature was affixed,” and Article 18-2 of the Electronic Document Act provides that “where an electronic document is not subject to any restriction or exclusion from the issuance of an authorized certificate, it may be confirmed by this Act.”

In full view of the contents of these provisions and the legislative purpose of ensuring the safety and reliability of electronic documents and electronic transactions, an electronic document transmitted by a person who is confirmed to be the principal by an authorized certificate issued by a licensed certification authority in an electronic financial transaction, even if it was prepared and transmitted against his/her will, barring any special circumstance, shall be deemed as falling under “the case where the electronic document received was sent by the addressee by the person who has justifiable grounds to believe that it was based on the will of the originator or his/her agent in connection with the originator or his/her agent,” as provided in Article 7(2)2 of the Electronic Document Act, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, the addressee of the electronic document, in such a case, can be deemed as the originator’s expression of intent contained in the electronic document

2. For the same purport, as long as the instant loan transaction agreement was concluded through an authorized certificate through an electronic financial transaction, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the instant loan transaction agreement takes effect on the Plaintiff even if the instant loan transaction agreement was concluded through mobile phishing against the Plaintiff’s will. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment and validity of the agreement

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)