1. The Plaintiff’s obligation to Defendant B Co., Ltd. of KRW 1,014,150 on January 4, 2018 and Defendant C Co., Ltd.

1. Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant C”) asserting that on September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a contract for the purchase of cell phone devices and the purchase of mobile communications services with the above Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”), thereby claiming that the Plaintiff pay the mobile communications charges, such as that stated in paragraph (1).

Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) asserted that the above Defendant concluded a credit insurance contract with Defendant C as to the obligation to pay the cost of installment of a mobile phone cell phone with Defendant C, and that Defendant B paid the amount equivalent to the amount of installment to Defendant C as insurance money because the Plaintiff failed to pay the said amount of installment payment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement as set forth in paragraph (1) of this Article with the Plaintiff.

However, the Plaintiff did not conclude the above contract with Defendant C Co., Ltd.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the absence of each of the above obligations against the Defendants as its principal lawsuit.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Defendants asserted that on September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff and Defendant C entered into a contract with the said Defendant to purchase a mobile phone from the said Defendant and to purchase a mobile phone.

According to the statement Eul evidence No. 2, according to the plaintiff's name, a new service contract, a installment repayment contract, a discount contract, a standard manual for radio service contract (the total "this case contract, etc." hereinafter) with the contents that the plaintiff purchased a mobile phone from the above defendant and subscribed to the mobile communication service of the above defendant, is prepared between the defendant C and the above defendant C, and the copy of the plaintiff's driver's license is attached thereto. It can be acknowledged that the plaintiff's license is attached.

However, the Plaintiff asserts that the signature and writing of the Plaintiff’s name stated in the instant contract, etc. are not the Plaintiff, and the fact that a copy of the driver’s license is attached thereto is alone.