1.(a)

The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

B. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 2,000,000.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant B is a person who operates a mobile phone agency (hereinafter “instant agency”) with the trade name of “E” in the Suwon-si flood Zone D, and Defendant C is a person who runs a wholesale and retail business of communications equipment, and Defendant C is a person who works for the instant agency and performs the duties of opening mobile phones, etc. while working for the instant agency.

B. Around November 23, 2012, the Plaintiff and F, who was known to the Plaintiff, opened one cell phone (H) with the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate at the instant agent around May 3, 2013, and Defendant C dealt with the said opening work.

In addition, F has opened one cell phone of each of the above radio operators in the name of the plaintiff in the J mobile phone agency and K mobile phone agency located in Young-si area I around that time.

In this regard, on August 26, 2015, F received a summary order of KRW 3 million from the Suwon District Court as approximately KRW 14066 (the fabrication of private documents, the uttering of private investigation documents, the preparation of qualification-based private documents, the presentation of qualification-based private documents, and the display of qualification-based private documents).

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against F with F on the same suspicion as F on October 6, 2015 against an employee of the mobile phone agency in the name of the above mobile phone, but the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office (No. 70725 of 2015) rendered a disposition without suspicion (defluence of evidence) on the ground that “F, denying the public offering, the employee was unaware of the other person’s identification card and F’s age, or the Plaintiff was thought to be a normal agent because of the fact that the employee was unaware of the other person’s personal identification card and F’s identification card, or the Plaintiff’s identification card was issued.” This statement conforms to the general transaction formula related to the opening of the mobile phone.”

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 8-1 to 4, Evidence No. 12, 13, Evidence No. 14-1, 2, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Defendant C conspired with F or by negligence with F, and at least G mobile phone in the name of the Plaintiff.