1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 12, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for subscription to mobile communications services and for mobile device installment sales (hereinafter “instant contract”) with Defendant K and its mobile phone sales at “B in cooperative relations with the agent of Defendant KT Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant KT”) via an agent in the name-free manner.”

B. The Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd”) concluded a credit insurance contract with Defendant KK with the content that the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. compensates the said debt to Defendant KK within the scope of the purchase amount of insurance if the Plaintiff did not perform its obligation under the instant contract.

C. The Plaintiff delayed the payment of the mobile phone installment to Defendant KT, and Defendant KT claimed insurance money to Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance around May 2013.

On May 22, 2013, the Defendant’s Seoul Guarantee Insurance paid KRW 776,436 of the insurance money to Defendant K, and around October 2016, the Plaintiff claimed KRW 936,610 ( KRW 776,436 and delay damages) to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, 4 evidence, Eul 1, 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff sent a copy of the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate via facsimile after hearing the phrase that the Plaintiff would grant subsidies if the Plaintiff changed his previous mobile phone operator from Defendant KT’s employee to Defendant KT, and that the said employee or a third party entered into the instant contract with the content that the Plaintiff’s mobile phone operator opened the Defendant’s mobile phone by stealing the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate’s name using the Plaintiff’s copy.

The Plaintiff did not intend to conclude the instant contract with the Defendant KT and did not confer the power of representation to anyone to conclude the instant contract, and even if the Plaintiff conferred the power of representation to enter into the instant contract, it is an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act.