logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.07.21 2014나10247
사용료
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 16, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the installment sale and service of mobile phones between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the mobile phone number B was opened to the Defendant. Moreover, on October 17, 2012, the contract for the installment sale and service of mobile phones was entered into, and the mobile phone number C was opened to the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). B.

The instant contract was concluded through the Internet website operated by the Plaintiff. In such a case, the Plaintiff is subject to the procedure of identification by either “a digital signature method based on a certified certificate” or “a credit card principal certification method (including the entry of the name, resident registration number, credit card number, validity period of the said credit card, and password)” in his/her name.

C. The instant contract was made by means of credit card principal authentication, and all the Defendant’s credit card information was normally entered.

On November 30, 2012, the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s call from the Plaintiff to urge the payment of the unit principal and the user fee incurred for each of the above mobile phones, and the instant contract was terminated on the same day.

E. Meanwhile, the principal and usage fees for each of the above mobile phones are KRW 1,659,060 for the mobile phone number C, and KRW 1,493,750 for the mobile phone number B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6, 8 and 9, each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. We examine the legitimacy of the instant contract.

1. "Electronic document and electronic transaction" in Article 7 (2) 2 of the Framework Act on Electronic Commerce means a person in whose case the addressee has justifiable grounds to believe that the electronic document received was based on the will of the originator or his/her agent, in accordance with relations with the originator or his/her agent.

arrow