1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation under the loan transaction contract dated March 10, 2017 against the Defendant does not exist.

1. The loan transaction contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on March 10, 2017 (hereinafter “instant contract”) concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on March 10, 2017 is null and void since the relevant documents were forged by the Plaintiff’s shape B. As such, the said contract is null and void. Therefore, there is no contractual obligation against

2. The evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff directly entered into the instant contract or consented to, or conferred the power of attorney on, the conclusion of the said contract.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap's evidence Nos. 1-1(i)(i) and 1-6(i)(ii), 1-7(i) and 3-1 through 3-3), 2 and 4, it is deemed that Eul arbitrarily prepared a loan contract by stealing the plaintiff's personal information without the plaintiff's consent and received the loan from the defendant.

Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s loan obligation to the Defendant under the contract of this case was effective, and as long as the Defendant contests this, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation.

The Plaintiff-type B, without the Plaintiff’s consent, arbitrarily used the Plaintiff’s identification card to obtain loan-related documents, such as a certified copy and abstract of the Plaintiff’s name, and submitted the above identification card and documents, etc. to the Plaintiff to obtain a loan of KRW 5 million from the Defendant on March 10, 2017, and received a loan from the Defendant.

The plaintiff filed a complaint against B on the charge that B forged or exercised the contract of this case under the name of the plaintiff, and the prosecutor of Busan District Prosecutors' Office acting for the prosecutor of Busan District Prosecutors' Office was not subject to disposition of non-prosecution on June 7, 2018.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.