1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff lent the name necessary for the operation of C to B, and received the Plaintiff’s identification card copy, resident registration copy, certificate of personal seal impression, and seal imprint.

B. B purchased an imported vehicle under the Plaintiff’s name on June 24, 2014, and concluded an agreement with the Defendant on the installment of the purchase price (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and borrowed KRW 57 million from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as B entered into the instant contract with the Defendant without the Plaintiff’s consent by means of the Plaintiff’s seal imprint, certificate of personal seal impression, etc., the Plaintiff does not bear the obligation to return the remainder of the claim amount of the loan under the relevant contract. 2) The Defendant asserts that, even if the Plaintiff can be deemed to have applied for the loan, or it is not so, the Defendant has justifiable grounds to believe that B was authorized to engage in the act of loan application, the Plaintiff bears the obligation to pay the loan amount under the instant contract.

B. According to the above evidence, in the application for new loan loan loan (No. 1-2 of the Plaintiff’s identification card No. 1-2), the Plaintiff’s seal impression is affixed to the applicant column, and thereafter, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression (for the purpose of delegation): the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate (for the purpose of delegation) on May 23, 2014; the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate; the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate; and the Plaintiff’s identification card are attached to the document that the contractor knows that the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff (However, the Defendant appears to have transmitted the Plaintiff’s identification card by facsimile; and the Plaintiff’s photograph was attached to B).