beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion was made by hearing the words "if the plaintiff lends his name to the opening of the Hand phone, he will not cause damage to the plaintiff by immediately terminating the plaintiff's resident registration certificate after opening the phone," and there was no conclusion of a contract for the use of mobile communications services and a contract for the use of mobile communications services with the defendant.
Since then, the number change on March 1, 2013 and the number change on March 2, 2013 was made to the mobile phone opened. At the time of the above change of number, the Plaintiff was able to receive conscientious objection and were in the return service, so there was no permission for the change of number.
Although the Plaintiff does not dispute the obligation to pay a device by recognizing the negligence of delivery of a copy of the resident registration certificate, the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay the user fee for mobile communications service due to the change of number by stealing the name of the Plaintiff without permission, and is therefore seeking confirmation of the existence of the obligation.
2. Determination
A. If the interpretation of a declaration of intent cannot identify the party’s genuine intent, the elements of the declaration of intention are the effect to be inferred from the act of expression, i.e., the intention to be inferred from the act of expression, that is, the in-depth effect of the person who made the expression, and thus, it is reasonable to interpret it with the intention inferred from the act of externally expressed, rather
(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da1320 delivered on April 9, 1996)
B. The fact that the Plaintiff copied one copy of his/her resident registration certificate for the opening of his/her personal phone to his/her name is without dispute between the parties. In light of the fact that the “Handphone opening” referred to in this context is a naturally premised on the conclusion of the mobile communication service contract, the Plaintiff, regardless of whether the Plaintiff had an intention to use the mobile communication service by opening the handphone, is an intention to subscribe to the mobile communication service in his/her name under an agreement with the non-party.