1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 9, 2016, the Defendant drafted a “T service new contract” in which “D” operated by C is opened with “E (hereinafter “E”) as “number D” and receives communications services provided by the Plaintiff, who is a radio operator.

(A) the defendant's identification card is attached; (b)

As above, the unpaid telecommunications charges from February 2, 2017 to June 2017 of the instant number opened as above are KRW 849,790.

C. On the other hand, the Defendant filed a criminal complaint against C against C, stating that “C still remains the value of the F phone number previously used. It shall be allowed to open the phone now, and two times.” The Defendant made payment of G’s mobile phone to the Defendant, and the remainder E (the instant number number)’s mobile phone sold to the Defendant and did not pay the mobile phone price of KRW 803,110 and the mobile phone price of KRW 1,504,040 for the following reasons.” The Defendant filed a criminal complaint against C on the criminal facts that “C acquired financial benefits equivalent to the same amount in the manner that it did not pay the mobile phone price of KRW 803,110 and the mobile phone price of KRW 1,504,04,00 from November 2016 to October 2017.” On May 30, 2019, the Eunpyeong Housing Site of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a disposition of suspicion for the following reasons.

① The evidence proving the suspicion of C when considering the following: (a) C paid the device value of the mobile phone previously used by the Defendant and KRW 339,218; (b) the Defendant’s signing and sealing on the new contract with G and the instant number in the circumstance where the aforementioned overdue charges were in arrears; (c) the Defendant opened the instant number in order to resolve the unpaid charges; (d) the Defendant did not have any discussion on how to handle the device after opening; and (d) there was no fact that the Defendant paid the device value of KRW 135,00 for G opened to use directly; and therefore, it is inevitable to accept C’s assertion that the instant number was opened to resolve the said device value and the overdue charge for the mobile phone used before.