Court dismissed consumer loan dispute claims citing electronic contract validity and usury law compliance.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay the loan principal plus contractual interest and procedural costs. The defendant argued that the electronic loan contract was invalid due to lack of physical signature and that the bank failed to prove actual fund transfer, while also claiming abusive clauses and lack of pre-litigation summons. The court rejected these defenses by establishing that electronic contracts are legally binding for consumers, the transaction records proved fund disbursement and immediate usage, and the loan terms complied with usury regulations.