1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) entered into a contract to pay each communication fee.

On September 21, 2015, a contract on vicarious execution of the payment of the communications fee (hereinafter “first contract”) stipulating that D shall deposit the amount equivalent to the relevant communications fee into the receipt account upon request of D for the payment of the communications fee borne by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

(2) On December 1, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) to pay the relevant communications fees to the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff requests the payment of the communications fees owed by C to the Defendant, then the Plaintiff entered into a contract to pay the communications fees (hereinafter “second contract”).

B. D’s payment of the instant communications charges under each of the above contracts 1) The Plaintiff, pursuant to Article 2 agreement, shall pay 864,905,620 won out of the communications charges for June 2017 to the Defendant of C (hereinafter “instant communications charges”).

(2) On June 30, 2016, D requested E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) (hereinafter referred to as the “E”) to pay the amount equivalent to the above amount on behalf of D under the contract. On behalf of D, D requested D to pay the amount by 864,905,620 won of the instant communications fee by putting a telephone on the Defendant’s local receipt agency, and E was approved by entering the card number, term of validity, and password of D.

C. 1) Meanwhile, in accordance with the terms and conditions of a franchise store with F, the Defendant provided that the card holder’s identification card should be checked at the time of settlement of at least 500,000 won, in order to prevent unlawful use of the card when paying the communications fee by means of the card. However, E did not undergo such verification process at the time of settlement. 2) Accordingly, the Defendant’s person responsible for payment is the relevant document card so that D person who is the card holder can directly pay to E and check that the card holder is a normal payment.