1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B received the instant loan under the name of the Plaintiff without the Plaintiff’s permission, and thus, there is no obligation to the Defendant against the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the Defendant sought reimbursement of the instant loan to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation that there is no obligation to repay the instant loan.

B. The Defendant’s assertion directly concluded the instant loan agreement with the Defendant.

Even if the Plaintiff did not conclude the instant loan contract, ① B had the basic authority to act on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant believed that B exercised the Plaintiff’s authority as the Plaintiff itself, so the express representation provision of Article 126 of the Civil Act applies mutatis mutandis to the Plaintiff, thereby affecting the validity of the instant loan contract, or ② the Plaintiff ratified the instant loan contract ex post facto.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff is liable to the Defendant for the instant loan.

2. Determination

A. According to the statement as to whether the Plaintiff directly entered into the instant loan agreement, the applicant for the loan of the personal credit loan application for the instant loan is written in the debtor column of the agreement on personal credit loan, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s signature was written thereafter is recognized.

However, in full view of the shape of evidence Nos. 3 and the purport of the entire argument by the appraiser C of the first instance trial, the above written application and written agreement in which the plaintiff's name is entered is recognized as having been inconsistent with the plaintiff's actual completion, and there is no other evidence to prove the authenticity of evidence Nos. 3, and thus, the above written application and written agreement (Evidence No. 3) cannot be used as evidence.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff directly concluded the instant loan contract only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 in Eul, and there is evidence to otherwise recognize.