A. The Defendant is an agent of LG Plus Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “LG Plus”).

B. On June 29, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the purchase of a device with the content that: (a) the shipment price of LG G5 Handphone (name LG-F700 L of a device model; hereinafter “instant device”) is KRW 836,00, subsidies for a device is KRW 230,000, subsidies for a device; (b) the actual purchase price is KRW 606,00,000; and (c) the actual purchase price is at KRW 30,000,000; and (d) the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Defendant to use the fare system for a period of 24 months, and 59.9.9.

(hereinafter “instant contract”, and attached Form 1). At the time of the instant contract, the Defendant received a written consent from the Plaintiff.

C. From July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to cancel the instant terminal installment transaction from around July 1, 2016, but the Defendant rejected the request.

On July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff received “exploitation within 14 days” from the LG Electronic C Service Center on the ground of “vibrationing, string,” and again requested the secondary Defendant to withdraw the application, but the Defendant was to exchange the same product with the same product for not more than 14 days.

Meanwhile, the documentary evidence states that “this ruling shall be valid until July 12, 2016, the original form of this ruling shall be delivered to the buyer and shall not be requested by the agency to return the items 14 days after purchase or the unification.”

On July 19, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) the Defendant could not withdraw; (b) the Defendant could not withdraw; and (c) made a telephone at least two weeks in LG Plus 114; (d) the Plaintiff contracted with the manager for more than one week; (b) the Defendant was not entitled to withdraw from one another; and (c) the Plaintiff was fully responsible for the withdrawal.

Withdrawal/Cancellation of the instant contract

“The instant device was sent along with the content certification, and the Defendant’s employee received it on July 20, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff.