채무부존재확인
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1.The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Eul evidence No. 1 and 3:
On August 22, 2012, at the D office located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, a new contract on the service of the SK Telecom cell phone was made. The customer information column for application for subscription includes: “A”, “resident registration number E”, “F”, “Automatic transfer contact points”, “Automatic transfer application: the name of the agricultural bank, agricultural bank, deposit owner A, and G account number”; and the copy of the sales contract for the device in the name of A, the LTE Plus license certificate, and the resident registration certificate are attached.
After that, the plaintiff was transmitted the certification number 930588 to his mobile phone F, and the mobile phone certification was completed, and accordingly the mobile phone B was opened.
From August 22, 2012 to April 18, 2013, the Defendant claimed KRW 2,213,080 to the Plaintiff for mobile phone B usage fees and terminal installment payments.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. As the lawsuit in this case, the Plaintiff asserts that, as seen earlier, a new service contract, a contract for the installation of a device, a contract for the establishment of a franchise store, and a written confirmation of the admission of LTEpler, etc. are stolen in the Plaintiff’s name, and the Defendant did not confirm the identity, the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay the Defendant the mobile phone B
B. On the other hand, as seen earlier in the new contract for the service of mobile phone B, the mobile phone used by the Plaintiff was entered into a contact point for confirmation of the subscription, and the Plaintiff’s certification number was transmitted and confirmed thereby, and the mobile phone certification was completed. In such a situation, a new service contract, a contract for the installation of a device, a contract for the establishment of a Ltefluor, and a third party, not the Plaintiff, were entered into a new service contract for the mobile phone B.
The mobile phone certification is also required for the opening of the mobile phone B.