1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Basic facts were concluded on October 26, 2015 under the Plaintiff’s name on the following: Defendant Sccom and mobile telephone terminal (the departure price of KRW 878,900 after deductions such as subsidies, subsidies, etc.) sales and telecommunications service contracts were concluded, and the phone numbers of B were allocated to the device.

Plaintiff

On November 2, 2015, Defendant KT and mobile phone (the call price of KRW 1,070,80, and the subsidy of KRW 981,580) entered into a contract for the sale and purchase of mobile devices and the use of telecommunications services, and the telephone number of KRW 3 was assigned to the device.

Plaintiff

On October 29, 2015, Defendant KS links and mobile phone terminals (the departure price of KRW 899,800 and the price of KRW 581,800 after deducting subsidies, etc.) concluded a contract to use telecommunications services and to use telecommunications services (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant contracts”), and the phone numbers were allocated to the devices.

Accordingly, by January 2016, the Plaintiff paid the charge of KRW 91,880 to Defendant Ecom and KRW 116,30 to Defendant Kcom.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (hereinafter referred to as "numbering items") and the plaintiff's assertion as to the purport of the whole pleadings and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion concluded each contract of this case with the defendants by stealing the plaintiff's personal information due to the divulgence of personal information during the loan counseling process. Thus, each contract

Therefore, the Plaintiff did not bear the Defendant’s obligation, such as the cost of the terminal, under each of the instant contracts, and Defendant Ecom and Defendant K, must refund to the Plaintiff the fee received from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

Judgment

Article 7 (2) 2 of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions shall be applied to the addressee of the electronic document where the electronic document received has been transmitted by the person who has justifiable grounds that the addressee would have based on the will of the originator or his/her agent, according to relations with the originator or his/her agent.