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

A. On June 12, 2012, under the name of the Plaintiff, the Defendant entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of mobile phones and for the use of services (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, and the phone number “B” was allocated to the relevant device.

B. The instant contract was concluded through the online website, and its identity verification procedure was conducted by means of an “electronic signature based on the official certificate” instead of verifying the identification card.

C. New subscription to the instant mobile phone was filed on June 12, 2012, and the mobile phone delivery was delivered on June 13, 2012 to the “Sacheon-si, Nowon-gu, Seoul,” and around 16:00 on June 13, 2012, the service was suspended due to the Plaintiff’s report on the use of name.

Pursuant to the contract of this case, the terminal price and service fee are KRW 793,330.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 4-6 evidence, Eul's 3-7 evidence, the purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not conclude the instant contract with the Defendant, or used it by obtaining delivery of mobile phones from the Defendant, and thus, the instant contract was concluded by stealing the Plaintiff’s name.

In addition, while an authorized certificate under the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “authorized certificate of this case”) was used in the process of concluding the instant contract, the Plaintiff did not bear the mobile phone usage fee and the obligation to pay the mobile device, since the Plaintiff did not obtain the authorized certificate of this case and the Defendant did not verify the true intent of the Plaintiff through telephone communications or interview.

B. The defendant's assertion that the contract of this case was executed through an authorized certificate for the purpose of identification, and in light of the procedure for the close issuance of the authorized certificate, it is practically impossible for a third party to obtain the authorized certificate for the purpose of identification without the consent or help of the principal, and the defendant shall obtain the authorized certificate.