1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, while using the Internet service provided by the Defendant in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, B apartment 1313 Dong 802, the Defendant withdrawn total of KRW 1,719,576 from the Plaintiff’s account to April 2013 despite the termination of the Internet use contract on November 2008, the Plaintiff claimed the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the Defendant.

B. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number in the case of virtual numbers), it is recognized that the plaintiff paid Internet service charges to the defendant from December 2, 2008 to April 2013 in the course of using the defendant's Internet service, but it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff terminated the Internet service contract to the defendant around November 2008, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 4, the Plaintiff received the Internet fee request sent by mail from the Defendant at the above residence of every month, and the Plaintiff’s wife asked about the Defendant’s international telephone fee, basic fee, and exemption from the Internet service contract on Nov. 11, 2008, but did not explicitly indicate the intent to terminate the Internet service contract, and the Plaintiff tried to ask the Defendant’s counselor on Apr. 2, 2009 about the termination of the telephone service contract. In light of the above recognition, it is recognized that the Plaintiff used the Defendant’s Internet service and the telephone service and terminated the telephone service contract on Nov. 13, 2008, and did not cancel the Internet service contract.

C. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

2. Conclusion.