1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant: (a) an insured incident under a credit insurance contract concluded between the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) (the Plaintiff purchased a device at the agent of the Intervenor around June 4, 2012 and did not pay the cost). (b) Under the premise that the Defendant paid the insurance money to the Intervenor, the Defendant claimed for reimbursement (1,082,570 won) against the Plaintiff.

B. However, the Plaintiff did not purchase mobile phone (C) from the auxiliary intervenor.

C. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant in relation to the purchase of mobile phone devices from the auxiliary intervenor’s agency does not exist.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the non-existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims, denies the facts constituting the cause of the obligation by specifying the claim first, the defendant as the creditor bears the burden of assertion and certification

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998). B.

1) On June 4, 2012, the Plaintiff’s name entered into a mobile communications service subscription agreement on mobile phone (C) (hereinafter “instant contract”) between the Intervenor and the Intervenor.

(2) The Defendant and the Intervenor entered into a credit insurance contract, and the Plaintiff did not pay the price of a device based on the instant contract to the Intervenor, the Defendant paid the amount of insurance proceeds to the Intervenor. As of September 18, 2015, the amount that the Defendant is liable to claim to the Plaintiff would amount to KRW 1,082,570 ( principal KRW 950,130,130).

3) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant contract was not concluded according to the Plaintiff’s intent, and filed a lawsuit against the Intervenor seeking confirmation of non-existence of the obligation to use mobile phones (C) (2,376,830) (Seoul Western District Court 2015dan41452, supra).