A. A. On August 11, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into the instant Interconnection Convention with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant Interconnection Convention”). According to the instant Interconnection Convention, the Defendant granted 050 individual numbers to the Plaintiff, so that 050 individual numbers communication (which means 050 individual numbers are made to the Plaintiff through the connection line between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is 050 individual numbers granted from the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is 050 individual numbers granted from the Defendant to the Plaintiff for the development of the system for personal number communication (which means 050 individual numbers granted from the Defendant to the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s exchange line (which means 050 individual numbers are collected from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was able to provide the Plaintiff’s personal number service (which means 050 individual numbers) through the instant Interconnection Convention, and the Plaintiff was able to provide the Plaintiff’s personal number service (which means 050 individual numbers, hereinafter “the instant app”).

3. If the Plaintiff’s customers pass through the above method, the Defendant received 050 connection fees from the mobile operator and paid part of them to the Plaintiff as the commission. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not distinguish the connection call amount, which served as the basis for calculating the initial commission, from the total amount of the telephone, and instead used the received call and the sending call as the basis for the total amount of the telephone, and the mobile operator, who was unaware of the fact that the personal number service via the instant app was being used for the transmission, was paid the commission based on the total amount of the telephone.

(b)in this case;