1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance other than the following Paragraph 3 as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used in a trial: "3. Signboards";

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 13 and 4 as well as the whole, as to the criminal facts that "D, around July 2009, by deceiving the defendant without obtaining delegation or approval from the plaintiff for opening or opening of the mobile phone, by deceiving the defendant, and without authority, opened four mobile phones in the name of the plaintiff," it can be acknowledged that as to the criminal facts of "the defendant was indicted with a summary order of KRW 3 million with the Busan District Court Decision 2010Da11954, May 12, 2010 and the summary order issued by the Busan District Court Decision 2010Da11954, which became final and conclusive, D shall be deemed to have opened a mobile phone in the name of the plaintiff without authority of attorney.

B. We examine whether the Plaintiff’s act of expression is constituted as to D’s act. The expression agent by the indication of the granting of power of representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act is established when, regardless of the nature of basic legal relations between the person who performed the act and the person who performed the act on behalf of the principal, the person himself/herself and the third party with an indication of granting of power of representation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da23425, Aug. 23, 2007). According to the evidence evidence evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff sent a copy of the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate to use it for issuing the mother’s welfare card around May 209, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff granted the right of representation to D for concluding the contract through the mobile phone.

The defendant asserts to the effect that he had conversations with the plaintiff to confirm himself.