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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On August 23, 2012, through the Defendant’s online shopping mall site, each of the mobile communications service subscriptions and terminal installment sales contracts (hereinafter “each of the instant contracts”) with the phone number B around August 23, 2012 and the phone number C around August 24, 2012 were concluded.

B. At the time of the conclusion of each of the instant contracts, the Defendant followed the procedure for identification by means of the Plaintiff’s credit card identity certification method (in a case where the Defendant entered two forms prior to the name, resident registration number, credit card number, validity period, and password).

C. Since then, KRW 193,650 was automatically transferred from September 21, 2012 to November 30, 2012 from the Plaintiff’s account (FFD) to the Defendant.

The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to pay the total amount of KRW 1,451,960 in connection with each of the instant contracts, which was received from Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., and the remainder of the mobile phone fees was not paid KRW 895,310.

E. On the other hand, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiff reported to the Haak Police Station in the Republic of Korea that a third party opened a mobile phone by stealing the Plaintiff’s name. On the other hand, the Haak Police Station in the Republic of Korea suspended the instant case on the grounds that it is difficult to identify the suspect.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties did not conclude each of the instant contracts with the Defendant. However, there was a fact that the Defendant Company received a phone call from the Defendant Company that KRW 3 million in the future of the Plaintiff from the Defendant Company and provided information on resident registration numbers, account numbers, and credit card information, and the said Party appears to have opened a mobile phone by stealing the name of the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the address and contact point stated in the application form for joining the mobile phone written in the name of the plaintiff are not the plaintiff, but the elderly.