beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff is the Defendant based on a new mobile phone subscription contract concluded on June 9, 2014 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. At around 2007, D, while living together with the Plaintiff’s mother B, gave birth to E and gave birth to her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her hers her her her her her her her
B. D, as of June 7, 2014, as of June 7, 2014, entered into a new subscription contract for mobile phones (hereinafter “instant subscription contract”) with the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff, who is a minor, on behalf of the said Plaintiff, and from that time, the amount of KRW 1,489,950 was unpaid by using mobile phones until August 23, 2016.
C. On September 2016, the Defendant sent a provisional attachment notice to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay unpaid fees via the F&U Credit Information Company.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-4 (including each number), Eul evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion D’s conclusion of the instant subscription contract under the name of the Plaintiff is an act of acting as a joint agent by a person with parental authority, who is a minor’s legal representative, who jointly exercises parental authority, and is null and void as an act of this conflict. As such, there is no charge liability for the Defendant under the instant subscription contract.
3. Determination
A. The power of representation for a juristic act on a child's property must be jointly performed as an exercise of parental authority (Article 909(2) and Article 920 of the Civil Act). Thus, an act of representation in violation of such joint representation constitutes an act of unauthorized representation and thus has no effect on a person himself/herself.
In light of the above legal principles, the fact that the Plaintiff’s father D alone concluded the instant subscription contract on behalf of the Plaintiff at the time of the instant subscription contract is as seen earlier.