1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates a telecommunications agency and wholesale and retail business, and the Defendant is a person who runs a mobile phone retail business with the trade name of “B”.

B. On November 13, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the sales commission to the Defendant when the Defendant was entrusted with the business of selling the Plaintiff’s mobile phone terminal, but the Plaintiff’s act of selling the subscriber’s or the mobile phone terminal on condition of paying the monthly user fee, falsely opening or registering in the name of an unspecified person, and selling the device in the name of another person by means of change in the name of an unspecified person, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “this case’s consignment contract”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. With respect to the 11 mobile phone terminal, among the mobile phone devices entrusted by the Defendant asserted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff returned the commission fee of KRW 7,139,560 to LGU, a total of KRW 7,139,560 to LGU, and returned the commission fee of KRW 645,70 due to the fraudulent name theft, and returned KRW 1,997,50 to the agent's identity theft.

This is based on the defendant's act of using a name theft or a dogmaticly unfortunately (one or more end) in violation of the consignment sale contract of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 9,782,760 as damages for breach of the consignment contract of this case and damages for delay.

3. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the reasoning of Gap evidence No. 9 and the entire purport of the oral argument, are ① sales to Dongdong customers according to the explanatory materials of mobile phone devices.