1. On August 21, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement with a social loan company organized by Apropha and entered into on August 21, 2014.

1. The parties’ assertion that: (a) the Plaintiff did not enter into a loan agreement of KRW 3 million on August 21, 2014 (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”); and (b) friendly B (Death on November 7, 2015) concluded the instant loan agreement by stealing the name of the Plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant succeeding intervenor asserts that the social loan created by Apropha had concluded a monetary loan contract through the confirmation of the plaintiff himself/herself.

2. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, it is recognized that a contract under the Plaintiff’s name to obtain a loan of KRW 3 million from a social loan created by Apropha on August 21, 2014 (hereinafter “instant loan contract”).

However, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 8, the signature of the loan contract of this case differs from the plaintiff's signature and penology, and since there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the loan contract of this case, it shall not be admitted as evidence.

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the recording file (No. 9) recorded at the time of the instant loan agreement appears to be different from the Plaintiff’s voice on April 14, 2017, in light of the fact that the listenened social loan employee and the voice of a person who made a telephone conversation on the third day of pleading at the date of pleading, etc., it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff concluded the instant loan agreement only by the descriptions of the evidence No. 4 through No. 9, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant succeeding intervenor is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.