1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 17, 2012 and October 19, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the installment sale and service of mobile phones (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, and the telephone numbers B and C were allocated.

B. Each of the instant contracts was concluded through online shopping mall.

In such a case, the Defendant requires the procedure of identification by means of “a digital signature based on a certified certificate” or “a credit card identity certification method (in which the name, resident registration number, credit card number, and the validity period of the said credit card, and the password are entered)” under the name of the person in question, and “a portable telephone certification method.”

C. Each of the instant contracts was made by means of credit card identity certification, and all of the Plaintiff’s credit card information was normally entered.

In addition, the automatic transfer account number stated in the application form of each of the contracts of this case is the account number (D) of the plaintiff SCB bank.

The Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff pay KRW 1,552,970 for the above mobile phones used in accordance with each of the instant contracts, and received KRW 720,000 for each of the instant mobile phones from the surety insurance company.

E. Each of the instant contracts was terminated on November 19, 2013 and October 24, 2013 on the grounds of the unpaid payment of telecommunications charges, etc.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2-1, 4-2, Eul evidence 4-1 and 2-2, the result of each inquiry about the fact that there is no dispute, the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not enter into each of the contracts of this case with the Defendant, and did not receive a mobile phone terminal. The Plaintiff entered into each of the contracts of this case with the Defendant by stealing the name of the Plaintiff and used the mobile phone.

Therefore, the Plaintiff.