1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the number of the identity theft cell phones of this part of the 17 mobile phones opened through F is unfair since all the six mobile phones, including the 11 mobile phones, included in the criminal facts of the identity theft of the government branch court, and the 11 mobile phones, were opened normally with the consent of the nominal owner. Therefore, the claim for compensation for this part is unjust.

However, even if it is not included in the subject of criminal punishment, there is no problem to recognize the identity theft by other evidence submitted in civil trial.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in the statements Nos. 5-1, 2, and 6-1 and 6-2 of the evidence Nos. 5-1, 5-2, the following facts are revealed from G, which is a mobile carrier, to be both an instrument that has been illegally opened through the use of a fraudulent name, and the 17 mobile phone from February 2017 and from February 3, 2017, the indemnity was collected in a manner that is deducted from the sales store commission after the imposition of indemnity to E., and the indemnity was deducted from the sales store fee. The above 17 mobile phone is considered to have been opened under the ordinary subscription contract because the period between the subscription date and the termination date is short and the unpaid fee is not considerable, and there is no reason or circumstance to view that the number of the illegal phone theft was lost from G, it can be recognized that the above 17 mobile phone was opened by the use of

The plaintiff's other assertion is rejected.

The plaintiff asserts that the negligence should be offset since E corporation also did not promptly verify the identity theft after opening of the mobile phone.

However, the identity theft.