1. On January 9, 2014, there is no loan obligation of KRW 1,970,000 related to the loan of insurance terms and conditions against the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. B called the Defendant Company on January 9, 2014, and filed an application for a loan of insurance terms and conditions with the Defendant’s employee as the Plaintiff himself/herself was the Plaintiff. On the same day, B withdrawn and used KRW 1,970,000 from the loan deposited in the account in the name of the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan”). B.

B The above A.

was prosecuted due to the facts of the offense, etc. of this paragraph and convicted;

(Seoul District Court Decision 2014Ma169, Daegu District Court 2014No4074). 【Ground of Recognition】 There is no dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1, 4, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff did not have concluded the instant loan agreement with the Defendant, and the instant loan agreement was made by phone call to the Defendant as if the Plaintiff were the Plaintiff, and thus, there is no Plaintiff’s loan obligation against the Defendant. 2) The Defendant’s loan agreement was concluded by the Plaintiff himself, or was duly concluded by the Plaintiff under the Plaintiff’s intention under the Plaintiff’s recognition and cooperation.

Even if not, B's act constitutes an expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Code, or the Plaintiff confirmed the act of unauthorized representation by expressing his intention to repay the loan of this case to the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff directly concluded the instant loan contract only by examining whether the Plaintiff himself or his lawful agent was to conclude the contract, on the sole basis of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 to 5

It is insufficient to recognize that the power of representation has been granted to B with respect to the instant loan agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the above facts, B was prosecuted for committing the crime that he/she applied for a loan by telephone and obtained pecuniary benefits by taking advantage of the fact that he/she was the Plaintiff in the criminal case related to the loan of this case.