beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.10.31 2016가단258455

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The Plaintiff’s claim for the installment payment of the device against Defendant Schlobrid Co., Ltd. amounting to KRW 13,544,94.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A. On January 26, 2015, the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) received the right to use the Defendant Company’s Internet telephone service (445 lines including D) from the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) to the Plaintiff around January 26, 2015 (hereinafter “instant Internet telephone”); and the Defendant Company changed the user of the said service contract to the Plaintiff Company with its consent.

B. Around October 2015, employees E of the Plaintiff Company called the call center of the Defendant Company and requested to change the name of 444 lines of the instant Internet phone to F Co., Ltd. F (former trade name: C, Co., Ltd., Ltd., G, and hereinafter “Nonindicted F”) that is another company run by the said Defendant Company, and paid unpaid charges confirmed as of November 9, 2015 according to the guidance of the call center counselor. However, the Defendant Company changed the name of 98 lines of the call on October 30, 2015, and did not consent to the change of name on the remaining 346 lines.

C. On October 30, 2015, the counselor of the call center of the Defendant Company stated that “at least a large number of lines and thereafter, he/she has been subject to examination at the present time in the computer.” On November 11, 2015, the approval process on the side of the head office should be kept for a long time, because the number of lines is large. The same shall apply to the process of approval on the side of the head office.”

B around April 16, 2016, Defendant A, the principal agent of the Defendant Company, requested the recovery of the Internet phone terminal, and Nonparty H et al. recovered the quantityless Internet phone terminal from the Plaintiff Company on April 16, 2016 and around 20.

On the other hand, on May 2016, the defendant company terminated the service on the ground of overdue charge, etc. against the above 346th line.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul 1 and 2 (including each number), and part of Eul witness E.