beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 21, 2012, the Plaintiff, a company running the mobile phone sales and service business, is an agency entrusted with the mobile phone of KSV, and the Plaintiff and Defendant A (C) concluded a consignment contract with the Plaintiff on November 21, 2012 to entrust Defendant A with the sales of goods, such as mobile telephone terminals, etc.
B. Defendant B (D) filed an application for opening of a mobile phone in the name of the office-based transportation company or the office-based logistics company (hereinafter “house-based transportation, etc.”) and opened 193 mobile phones from Escams until February 10, 2015 with Defendant A and the Plaintiff, using relevant documents, such as the power of attorney, business registration certificate, and financial statements, which he/she kept while handling the business of opening the office-based transportation company or the office-based logistics company (hereinafter “house-based transportation, etc.”).
C. The power of attorney at the time of opening the cell phone was effective until January 31, 2015. The payment account of the communications fee was designated as a deposit account in the name of “D” rather than rooftop transportation, etc. The Plaintiff’s explanation that the cell phone will be used normally for six months after opening the cell phone from the Defendant A without directly checking the intention of opening the cell phone to the rooftop transportation, etc.
On March 2015, the plaintiff and the defendant Gap asked Rocheon Transportation Co., Ltd. to not report the identity theft, and around March 23, 2015, E agreed not to report the identity theft theft for six months from the reunification with defendant A.
E. On April 17, 2015, E.S. case differs from the payer of the automatic transfer application for the aforementioned mobile phone subscription (D) and the subscription corporation (house transportation, etc.), and the person in charge of the opening of the subscription corporation shall use the additional improper use from the Plaintiff on the ground of the reasons for the non-openness of the opening.