1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 4, 2012, the Plaintiff’s name entered into two mobile phone installment transactions and mobile communications service contracts (hereinafter “each contract of this case”) with the Defendant through the Internet shopping mall (C and D), and the telephone numbers (E and “F”) were allocated.

B. Each of the instant contracts was submitted to the Defendant via an Internet site by an electronic document requesting subscription under the Plaintiff’s name. The specific procedures consist of the steps of inputting the Plaintiff’s name and resident registration number and inputting personal information, such as account information, e-mail, delivery paper, and the steps of passing self-certification through an authorized certificate.

C. Under each of the instant contracts, the mobile communications service charges claimed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff are KRW 1,430,590 in total.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-3-4, 4-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the party's assertion argues that since the Plaintiff entered into each of the instant contracts with the Defendant by stealing the name of the Plaintiff by stealing the name of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay mobile communications service charges of KRW 1,430,590 to the Defendant.

As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that each of the contracts of this case was lawfully concluded on the ground that there exists justifiable grounds to believe that each of the contracts of this case was lawfully concluded according to the plaintiff's intent, such as granting the plaintiff's legitimate power of representation to the person who has lost his name or going through the procedure

B. (1) First, as to whether the Plaintiff conferred a legitimate authority to conclude each of the contracts of this case to a name-in-factd person, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, the statement of No. 1 and the above mentioned.