1. The Plaintiff’s mobile phone B’s liability for the telecommunication fee for Defendant Stecom Co., Ltd. exists.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not enter into a mobile communications service subscription agreement with the Defendants, or has not been used after obtaining a mobile phone from the Defendants. The third party appears to have purchased and opened the mobile phone number stated in the purport of the claim from the Defendants by stealing the Plaintiff’s information. However, the Plaintiff did not bear the Defendant’s obligation to pay the mobile phone fee under each of the instant contracts, but sought confirmation that there is no obligation to state the purport of the claim, since the Defendants demanded the payment of the telecommunications fee.

2. Determination

A. On October 10, 2012, a contract for subscription to mobile communications services rendered by Defendant KS with respect to mobile phones in the Plaintiff’s name was concluded in writing. The Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate (the second part of the evidence No. 1-1) was attached at the end of the said written contract (the first part of the evidence No. 1-1), and the fact that the unpaid amount of the telecommunications fee under the said contract was 1,153,950 may be acknowledged by taking into account the absence of dispute between the parties or the whole purport of the pleading No. 1-1, 4-1 of the evidence No. 1-1.

However, the above written contract (the front portion of No. 1-1) states that the plaintiff himself/herself entered into a subscription contract with the sales employee at the defendant SK agency, but there is no dispute that the plaintiff did not enter into such contract, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity thereof. The plaintiff asserts that he/she entered into the above subscription contract by using a copy of resident registration certificate and his/her agricultural bank passbook in order to obtain a loan from his/her own name, and that he/she entered into the above subscription contract by stealing the plaintiff's name. The defendant SK also argues that the sales store of the agency to which the above subscription contract entered into is a criminal act related to the lending of money to the opening of a mobile phone.