1. The Plaintiff’s Love Loan Co., Ltd. is three million won based on the monetary loan agreement of February 4, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant Love Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Love”) entered into a loan transaction agreement with Defendant Love on February 4, 2015 with the terms that the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 3 million at an interest rate of KRW 34.9% per annum, delay damages rate of KRW 34.9% per annum, and the principal and interest of the loan within 36 months (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”), and claimed payment of the principal and interest of the loan on the ground that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 3 million.

B. On February 4, 2015, Defendant Industrial Complex Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Industrial Complex Loan”) entered into a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “instant monetary loan agreement”) with Defendant Industrial Complex on the grounds that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 3 million on the grounds that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 3 million, at a interest rate of 34.894% per annum, and due date of repayment on July 25, 2017, and at a interest rate of 34.894% per annum.

C. Defendant Love remitted KRW 3 million to the account number B (hereinafter “instant account”) in the name of the Plaintiff to the account number of the bank in the name of the Plaintiff, and Defendant Mountain Party loan also remitted KRW 3 million to the instant account on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have concluded the instant loan agreement and the instant monetary loan agreement, and the Plaintiff concluded the instant loan agreement and the monetary loan agreement by stealing the name of the Plaintiff, and subsequently withdrawn the loan from the instant account, and thus, the Plaintiff did not bear any obligation under the instant loan agreement and the monetary loan agreement.

B. (1) The Defendants’ assertion (1) in light of the fact that the instant loan agreement was prepared in accordance with the agreement signed with the electronic signature affixed through the Defendant’s certificate of official approval for the Plaintiff, and that the loans under the instant loan agreement were remitted to the instant account in the name of the Plaintiff.