(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.25 2014나36770

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.25 2014나36770

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a key telecommunications business operator who provides telecommunications services, and mainly provides telecommunications services to customers.

B. On August 22, 2012, the Defendant applied for the purchase of the mobile telephone service of “B” in the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant line”) through Nonparty D (which is in Sungnam-si C, and business operators are H; hereinafter “instant store”). On the same day, the Defendant opened the instant line in the Plaintiff’s name. However, the purchase agreement on the instant line was terminated on April 18, 2013.

C. Around January 17, 2014, the Defendant filed a claim with the Plaintiff for the instant amount of KRW 2,213,080 (hereinafter “instant unpaid charges”) in total from August 22, 2012 to April 18, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On the other hand, the plaintiff asserted that the joining agreement on the instant line was made by stealing the name of the plaintiff regardless of the plaintiff's intention, and that the defendant neglected his duty to verify himself, and thus, the joining agreement on the instant line is null and void. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that there was no obligation to pay the unpaid fees. On the other hand, since the defendant opened the instant line after confirming the plaintiff's intent to conclude the contract by telephone, the joining agreement on the instant line was valid.

B. The Plaintiff’s name was stolen solely on the basis of each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the conclusion of the subscription contract on the instant line was concluded.

It is insufficient to recognize that the defendant neglected the duty to verify the plaintiff himself/herself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2 to 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 to 3 is acknowledged as a whole as follows.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.20 2015나266

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.29 2013가단342897

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.21 2017나53035

-대법원 2009. 6. 25. 선고 2007다12944 판결

-수원지방법원 2019.07.18 2018가단32551