1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)

A. The Defendant Hyundai Savings Bank’s credit transactions on June 30, 2015.

1. Plaintiff’s claim against Hyundai Savings Bank Co., Ltd. as principal claim

A. Basic facts 1) The Defendant Hyundai Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hyundai Savings Bank”) on June 30, 2015 in the name of the Plaintiff by means of digital signature using an authorized certificate under the Plaintiff’s name.

(2) The Defendant Hyundai Savings Bank received a copy of the Plaintiff’s driver’s license in the name of the Plaintiff, a copy of the Plaintiff’s license issued on June 30, 2015, a resident registration card acquisition certificate of the National Health Insurance Corporation issued on June 30, 2015, a health care insurance premium payment certificate, and a copy of the agricultural bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, respectively, from the Plaintiff’s name, on the same day, the Defendant Hyundai Savings Bank remitted KRW 31,00,000 to the agricultural bank account in the name of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 1-6, and the purport of whole pleadings

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) concluded a loan agreement with the Defendant Hyundai Savings Bank by forging the digital signature in the Plaintiff’s name. As such, there is no obligation to the Plaintiff’s Defendant Hyundai Savings Bank pursuant to the said loan agreement. 2) In the instant loan agreement with the Defendant Hyundai Savings Bank, documents in the Plaintiff’s name were submitted to confirm the Plaintiff himself/herself, and the process of verifying the Plaintiff’s identity was completed through the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate, which is valid as a contract concluded based on the Plaintiff’

B used the Plaintiff’s name.

Even if the Plaintiff provided documents in the name of the Plaintiff necessary for the loan to B, the Plaintiff granted the basic right of representation for the loan act. Defendant Hyundai Savings Bank, as the Plaintiff, has a reasonable ground to believe that there was the right of representation for the conclusion of the instant loan agreement, and thus, is liable to act as an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act

(c) As to the cause of the claim 1.