A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) on December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) visited the mobile phone agent to open a fake phone upon the Plaintiff’s request on December 2, 2012; and (b) the Plaintiff and Defendant Scomcom Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Scom”).

) A new service contract and a sales contract for a terminal on December 7, 2012, signed by the contracting party (hereinafter “the contract dated December 7, 2012”).

(B) Although the Plaintiff prepared a statement of intent to conclude each contract immediately after hearing the agent’s expression of intent that there was no fake phone from the agent employee, the Plaintiff does not bear an obligation under the contract on December 7, 2012. Nevertheless, Defendant Ste Telecom asserted the establishment of a valid contract on the ground of the contract dated December 7, 2012 and urged the Plaintiff to perform the obligation accordingly, and thus, the Plaintiff is urged to confirm the existence of the obligation by the instant lawsuit. (ii) In the event that the signature of the party, the title holder recorded in the judgment document, does not dispute the party itself, the signature and seal was not affixed to the instant lawsuit.

Even if the authenticity of the document is presumed to be established, its probative value can not be rejected without any explanation acceptable to it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da17222, Feb. 14, 2008). The Plaintiff recognized that the Plaintiff’s signature stated in A’s No. 2-1 (Joining Agreement) is the Plaintiff’s own completion, and such authenticity is presumed to have been established.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff entered into a mobile device installment sales contract on the LTE62 LTE2’s new mobile service contract and the mobile phone number(the model name E250S, serial number 51235) in accordance with the contract of December 7, 2012.

On December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff is an agent immediately after the formation of the contract.