부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a mobile communications business operator, and C (hereinafter “C”) is a company that has entered into an entrustment contract with the Defendant on the use of mobile communications services and the trading of mobile devices.
B. On January 28, 2016, the Plaintiff drafted a written application for the compensation base (No. 1; hereinafter “instant application”) from January 28, 2016, stating that the Plaintiff subscribed to the Defendant’s mobile communications service and purchased mobile phone devices (the phone number: D; hereinafter “instant phone number”).
C. From February 22, 2016 to October 23, 2017, the Plaintiff was finally aware of the fact that KRW 1,980,710,000 was withdrawn from the account in the name of the Plaintiff’s trade association in total related to the instant telephone number from the account in the name of the Plaintiff.
On December 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for termination of the mobile communications service contract regarding the instant telephone number, and the said contract was terminated around that time.
On the other hand, the Defendant entered into a guarantee agreement with FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) on the payment of the Plaintiff’s mobile communications service user fee, and received KRW 171,250 from F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).
Upon F’s demand, the Plaintiff paid KRW 171,250 to F on June 20, 2018.
In addition, the Defendant delegated G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) with the right to collect the cost of using mobile communications services, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 150,190 to the unpaid user fee on March 27, 2019 according to G’s demand.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The plaintiff's assertion not only did not have visited C's store, but also did not have any signature on the application of this case (No. 1) and there was no fact that H, an employee of C, arbitrarily prepared the above application in the name of the plaintiff.
Therefore, the Plaintiff and the Defendant subscribed to the instant telephone number on January 28, 2016.