1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From April 2008, the Plaintiff was entrusted with the storage and sales of mobile devices provided by the said company by the said company, and the said company entered into an entrustment contract and sales agency contract with the said company, such as payment of sales commission and bounty, and traded with the said company thereafter. According to the sales agency contract, the Plaintiff was fully responsible when the issue of theft of name occurs after the sale.

(6)(3)(b).

Since then, the part of the telecommunications equipment sales business of the above company was divided, and the defendant was established on January 3, 2012, and the plaintiff and the defendant continued to engage in transactions under the above entrustment contract and sales agency contract until July 2012.

C. However, A, an employee of the Plaintiff, sold a mobile device by stealing the name of the customer, and 24,004,160 out of the total sales proceeds, was revealed through a final judgment that sold the mobile device by stealing the name of the customer, or received a report from the customer to the Korea Association for Telecommunications Promotion, or to the Telecommunications Civil Service Center from the customer.

At present, the defendant requests the plaintiff to pay the sale price of the fraudulent name theft.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 6, 8, witness Gap's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion argues that since the plaintiff's decision on the plaintiff's assertion is based on the fact that the defendant informed the plaintiff of the potential A's whereabouts, or that part of the agreement was received from A, the plaintiff's identity theft can not be paid for the sale price of the above fraudulent name.

In full view of the records of evidence No. 7 and the testimony of witness A, the fact that the defendant's personnel in charge of the defendant knew prior to the plaintiff's identity theft, and requested the plaintiff to deposit the sales price of the identity theft with the plaintiff.