logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.07.19 2016나49358
손해배상(기)
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. On June 18, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased LG-F500 L mobile phone (hereinafter “instant mobile phone”) by means of change of equipment in C, which is the Defendant’s mobile phone agent operated by B, and entered into a service contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

B. The Defendant provides users who have entered into a service contract with the mobile phone coverage that supports the cost of replacement or repair if the mobile phone is lost, stolen, damaged, or flooded, and provides that the subscription amount of the call forwarding service may be covered by the sponsorer insurance after the termination of the service.

C. From June 18, 2015 to July 13, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a guide message stating that “the Defendant cannot subscribe to the call-up service by subscribing to the call-up service.” After the termination of the call-up service, the Defendant did not terminate the call-up service, and, as a matter of course, did not automatically subscribe to the call-up service.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) there was a problem in the instant mobile phone purchased by the Plaintiff. C recognized that there was a problem in the instant mobile phone, and that the Plaintiff did not implement the agreement despite having agreed to compensate the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obliged to pay compensation to the Plaintiff. (2) While the Plaintiff was seeking to process the insurance due to the damage of liquid values during the use of the instant mobile phone, the Plaintiff could not conduct insurance as it did not have been covered by the mobile phone operator insurance.

The Plaintiff applied for the purchase of sponsorer insurance at the time of entering into the instant service contract with the Defendant, but was negligent by the Defendant.

arrow