1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On August 1, 2012, in the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, around August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff placed an advertisement to the effect that “B, upon registration as a member of a mobile phone agency’s computer system, would provide support for KRW 4.50,00 as a mobile phone subsidy.” After three months, the Plaintiff used an electronic membership registration to provide additional KRW 4.50,000 as a cash support while bringing a member’

The plaintiff thought that it is merely for the recruitment of members in electronic form, and sent a copy of his/her identification card to the above company by facsimile.

However, on October 10, 2012, the fact that the mobile phone fee was withdrawn while arranging the passbook was found and the fact that the mobile phone was opened through the defendant's customer counseling room was delayed.

This is that C and D, an operator of “B,” deceivings the Plaintiff and receives a copy of the Plaintiff’s identification card, and prepares a new mobile communications service contract in the Plaintiff’s name without the Plaintiff’s consent on August 1, 2012.

C and D were convicted of these fraud facts.

Therefore, as long as the Plaintiff did not enter into a contract for the use of mobile communications services with the Defendant, it cannot be said that there is no obligation against the Defendant for the payment of mobile communications services, and the Defendant asserts this.

2. Determination

A. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 11 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, it is recognized that the defendant's sales agency operated by C and D entered into a contract for the use of mobile communications services (charges No. 64 and service contract period: 24 months) and a contract for the use of mobile devices (stage period: 36 months, installment principal, 1,078,00 won, and terminal installment contract (hereinafter "the contract in this case").

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant contract is not based on the Plaintiff’s intent. As such, the instant contract was concluded by the Plaintiff’s intent.