(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.14 2018나27651

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 2018.12.14 2018나27651

사용료

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance, including any claims added at the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 4, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a mobile phone service contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) including the installment transaction of a mobile phone in the Defendant’s name, and allocated the phone number of “C” to the said terminal.

B. B falsely speaks that “I will give KRW 100,000 won to the Defendant through D, which is a solicitation book for the name of mobile phone,” “I will lend the name to him/her. The mobile phone opened in the name of the party will be at least responsible for the payment of the charges or the cost of the device claimed in the opening for six months, and will not be at all at all at issue.” The above mobile phone in the name of the defendant will open one unit of the above mobile phone in the name of the defendant, and due to this, I would have the defendant bear the liability equivalent to KRW 2,343,90 in total for the amount of the charges and the cost of the mobile phone, and thereby have the defendant acquire the pecuniary benefit equivalent to the same amount.” This judgment was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for 4 years on August 30, 2018, and the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

C. The Defendant did not pay KRW 1,376,100 in total and KRW 1,070 in the terminal price from May 2016 to August of the same year as stipulated in the instant contract. On May 9, 2018, the Defendant received a refund of KRW 704,620 in the usage fee that was paid by the Plaintiff upon filing a report on the theft of name.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 3,151,520 to the plaintiff a sum of KRW 1,376,100 due to the defendant's granting the right of representation to execute the contract of this case to B or allowing the defendant to conclude the contract of this case under the name of the defendant, and that the plaintiff is obligated to pay the plaintiff a sum of KRW 3,376,100 due to the contract of this case, KRW 1,070,80 due to the name theft

As to this, the defendant.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2014.09.03 2014고단2875

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.08 2017나30728

-수원지방법원성남지원 2013.06.25 2012가단45053

-청주지방법원 2018.06.14 2018고단506

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.02.01 2018나59146