1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added the judgment, which was repeated or newly made in the court of first instance, pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this subparagraph is the same as that of the first instance judgment). 2. Additional decision

A. A summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s instant re-recilion does not constitute “using personal information for any purpose other than the purpose of obtaining consent from the user” prohibited under Article 24 of the former Information and Communications Network Act, apart from the fact that it constitutes an extension of the period of possession of personal information by the user for the following reasons. A) The Plaintiff consented to the fact that, in the case of a prepaid phone service user who joined the instant prepaid service by November 2012, the Plaintiff may use personal information, such as the user’s name, telephone number, and subscription date, for the purpose of “the identification by the use of the relevant service.”

However, this case’s restitution shock is conducted on the premise of providing users with prepaid phone services free of charge, and it constitutes “providing services”, and at least by extending a contract for the use of prepaid phone services, which is the contract, at least by free, constitutes “additional services”. Since the contract for the use of prepaid phone services expires, it constitutes “Provision of personal dancing services” in terms of selecting users and offering additional services free of charge. Thus, this case’s restitution shock is ultimately intended.