1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the grounds for the instant claim, the Plaintiff concluded a contract to use mobile phone services with the Defendant and provided mobile phone services to the Defendant around May 24, 2016, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 2,105,459 out of the charges from May 24, 2016 to April 2017.

The defendant asserts that the third party's identification card was stolen by the defendant and used it, and that the contract was concluded with the plaintiff, and the defendant did not conclude the mobile phone service contract with the plaintiff.

However, barring any special circumstance, such as the reversal of presumption by reflective document where the person who prepared private document voluntarily signed, sealed, or stamped the private document in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da62977, Nov. 10, 201). The fact that the defendant’s signature under the application form (Evidence A) of this case (Evidence A) is the defendant’s writing is the defendant’s writing is presumed to be the authenticity of the above application form due to the lack of dispute between the parties. (The defendant stated at the third date of pleading in the trial of the party, that the part of the defendant’s name on the above application form is the defendant’s writing, but it is not the defendant’s writing. However, the defendant signed the above application form by inserting his name and signing it. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant concluded a mobile phone service contract between the plaintiff and the defendant as a content of the above application form.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Thus, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of the above unpaid charges of KRW 2,105,459 and that of the above unpaid charges.