1. Summary of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant on December 21, 2015

The gold statement from November 1, 2015 to November 25, 2015.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not file an application for the mobile phone (B) registered in the name of the Plaintiff, and that the said mobile phone was illegally registered and used due to misappropriation of his/her own name. The Plaintiff’s claim on December 21, 2015 asserted by the Defendant.

The defendant asserts that there is no interest liability on the mobile telephone charges of KRW 830,80 and the unpaid amount of KRW 3,99,280 in total from November 1, 2015 to November 25, 2015, and that there is no interest liability of KRW 4,830,080 in total, and the interest liability therefor. The defendant asserted that on May 7, 2015, between the plaintiff or the agent granted the power of representation from the plaintiff and the agent granted the power of representation, the contract for the online mobile phone service in the name of the plaintiff was valid by the credit card certification of the plaintiff on the Internet.

2. First of all, it is insufficient to find that the Plaintiff applied for the online mobile phone service by examining whether the contract was effective on May 7, 2015 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the online mobile phone service. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to find that the Plaintiff applied for the online mobile phone service (According to each of the evidence Nos. 2, 5, and No. 1). If the Plaintiff confirmed that the mobile phone was opened through a number known to the Plaintiff during the consultation process on November 2015, when the Plaintiff was visiting the Seoul East Telecommunication Agent to open the mobile phone, then the Plaintiff confirmed that the mobile phone was opened via a number known to the Plaintiff, it is questionable whether the Plaintiff was true to the Gyeonggi M&S Police Station, the address of the delivery place (No. 101 Dong 1202) recorded in the customer information column of the Plaintiff’s application for the mobile phone service under the name of the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff directly provided the aforementioned agent or the agent’s right to use the online telephone service.

3. If so, the Plaintiff.