1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, given that the reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment

2. A portion used for adding or cutting;

A. Additional determination as to the primary claim 1) The Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions of Claims by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Standard Terms and Conditions Regulation Act”).

According to the Act on the Refund of Fraudulent Damage, in order to regard the expression of intent included in the electronic document for the termination of the instant case as the Plaintiff’s expression of intent, the confirmation procedure shall be followed, and the identification measures stipulated in Article 2-4 of the Act on the Refund of Telecommunications Fraud Damage, etc. However, in the instant case, since the Defendant’s identification measures were not properly taken, the expression of intent contained in the electronic document for the termination of the instant case cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s expression of intent. Therefore, the termination of the instant case is null and void. (2) Article 9 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, which is to restrict the enterpriser’s right to cancel or terminate, is to restrict the enterpriser’s right to cancel, and it is not by the Defendant

In addition, in cases where the addressee has followed the procedure agreed in advance with the originator in order to verify whether an electronic document was of the originator, the addressee may regard the expression of intent contained in the electronic document as the originator in accordance with the Electronic Document Act, and the defendant shall be 3-b of the first instance judgment.

The plaintiff's assertion, which is premised on the defendant's violation of the obligation to take identification measures, is without merit, since the obligation to take identification measures stipulated in the Telecommunications Fraud Loss Refund Act has been fulfilled, such as written in the paragraph.

(b)for the preliminary claim, Section 15 of Section 11 of the Judgment of the first instance and Section 15 of the said Decision;