beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. On September 3, 2012, the Plaintiff was urged by the Defendant’s agency employees to use a new mobile phone under the following conditions.
- Maintenance of LTE72 Fee System 3 months and 8,000 won for the first core chips - Payment of the balance of the Plaintiff’s existing mobile phone terminal installation cost of KRW 207,900 - Payment to Defendant for a new mobile phone (LGF100 L) free of charge
B. The Plaintiff consented to the above conditions and sent a copy of the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate by electronic mail under the Defendant’s name on the premise that the mobile phone use contract was concluded.
C. However, on September 4, 2012, the Defendant’s agent’s employee arbitrarily drafted an application for subscription to mobile communications service in the name of the Plaintiff (a certificate No. 4-1, a mobile phone delivery price of KRW 99,900, and a mobile phone sales contract of KRW 1,032,90, which is the principal amount of KRW 1,032,90, which is the 36-month unit; hereinafter “the instant contract”).
Although the Defendant claimed the payment to the Plaintiff on the premise that the contract for the sale of a mobile phone was concluded with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff merely consented to the supply of a mobile phone without compensation, and there was no power to conclude the contract for the sale of a mobile phone, so the above contract for the mobile phone becomes null and void, and there is no obligation to pay for the mobile phone to the Defendant.
2. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the sales contract for a mobile phone device between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was effective, in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including each number), and the whole purport of the pleadings. However, in light of the overall argument of the Plaintiff, it is problematic whether the sales contract was revoked due to the deception