1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 29, 2014, through the Internet website, the Plaintiff applied for the purchase and sale of a device and the purchase of a mobile phone service. The Defendant’s name, resident registration number, and credit card number, etc. (the credit card number, credit card validity period, and password) were entered and certified as the Defendant himself/herself.

B. As above, June 3, 2014

In addition, in the same way, the defendant applied for the purchase and sale of terminal units and mobile telephone services in the name of the defendant, and the credit card number, etc. was entered and certified as the defendant himself.

C. At the time of the application for subscription to the above two recommended mobile phone services, the method of automatic transfer from the Defendant’s bank account was chosen.

Upon the application of the above two mobile phone services, the Plaintiff opened two mobile phone numbers (B and C).

E. However, on June 12, 2014, the Defendant reported that the Defendant’s name was stolen from the Defendant’s name to the Geumcheon Police Station, thereby reporting damage therefrom. On June 13, 2014, the Defendant ex officio terminated the above two recommended mobile phone services on the ground of the theft of name in the Guro branch office of the Plaintiff Company.

F. The fees for the use of mobile phones opened in the name of the defendant as above are KRW 1,390,420 in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As long as the Plaintiff confirms the originator of an application for the purchase and sale of a device by means of credit card principal certification and mobile phone service, it constitutes a case in which the expression of intent to subscribe to the contract contained in the application was transmitted by a person with justifiable grounds to believe that it was based on the intent of the Defendant or the Defendant’s agent, the contract entered into with the consent of the expression of intent to subscribe is effective against the Defendant.