1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s mobile phone (number B) liability of KRW 738,740 against the Defendant does not exist.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 11, 2015, via the Internet website opened by the Defendant, a contract for the installment transaction of mobile phones and the use of mobile communications services was drafted in the Plaintiff’s name by electronic document (hereinafter “instant contract”) (hereinafter “instant contract”), and B’s mobile phone device (hereinafter “instant mobile device”) was opened according to the instant contract.

B. The instant contract was concluded through the so-called “credit card identity certification method” that allows an electronic document originator to input the Plaintiff’s name, resident registration number, credit card information (the Plaintiff’s modern card number, effective period, and password front).

C. On March 12, 2015, immediately after confirming that the instant device was opened in the Plaintiff’s name on the Internet personal information inquiry site, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant’s customer center to contact the Defendant’s customer center and to suspend the use of the device on the ground of the theft of name. On March 13, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) deceiving the Plaintiff to the investigation agency on March 10, 2015, that the person who referred to the friendly Savings BankC was making a low-income loan; and (b) deceiving the Plaintiff on March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff was placed in front of the identification card, personal identification number, credit card number, validity period, password, and password; (c) the said person who referred to as C was not making a loan and used the instant device by stealing the Plaintiff by stealing the Plaintiff’s name; and (d) the Prosecutor suspended prosecution on August 18, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through Gap 5, Gap 7, Eul 1 and Eul 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant delivered the instant device in accordance with the instant contract, but the Plaintiff did not have received the instant device, and there was no delivery of the instant device at the address specified in the instant contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s contract against the Defendant is concluded against the Defendant.