logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.24 2016가합533189
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion has long been long concluded with Defendant EL Plus Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant EL Plus”), and applied for termination on October 1, 2013, and each of the above service contracts was terminated normally.

However, even though the Plaintiff did not enter into a contract to use the Internet service (hereinafter “instant contract to use the Internet service”) around July 2013 or concluded a contract to use the 070 telephone service around August 2013 (hereinafter “instant contract to use the 070 telephone service”), Defendant LIS claimed KRW 646,258 in total for the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with the three-year contract period and canceled each of the above contracts without complying with the contract period.

In addition, as the Plaintiff did not pay, it delegated the collection of the above claim to the Defendant Korea Credit Information Company (hereinafter “Defendant Korea Credit Information Company”), and the Defendant Korea Credit Information Company sent notice of the scheduled application for provisional attachment several times to the Plaintiff and had the Plaintiff enter the said claim in bad credit standing.

Therefore, the defendants have a duty to impair the plaintiff's honor and inflict mental or physical pain on the ground that they collect non-existent claims, and to pay 500 million won to the plaintiff due to tort damages.

2. Determination

A. The key issue of the instant case is: (a) the Plaintiff claimed KRW 646,258 in total, including penalty; (b) the Plaintiff did not pay the said amount; and (c) Defendant El branchus requested the Defendant to collect the said claim; and (d) the Plaintiff sent the notice of scheduled application for provisional attachment to the Plaintiff three times from June 2015 to August 2015, there is no dispute between the parties.

On the other hand, in the instant case, Defendant El branchus on July 8, 2013 and Defendant El branchus.

arrow