beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s contract for the mobile phone service on May 21, 2012 against the Defendant is based on the contract for the use of the mobile phone and the contract for the use of the device.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 21, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a mobile phone service contract and a mobile phone sales contract (hereinafter “the instant one contract”) with the Defendant, and entered into a mobile phone service contract and a mobile phone sales contract (hereinafter “the instant two contract”) on May 22, 2012.
B. The instant contract Nos. 1 and 2 was terminated due to the failure to pay each charge on March 19, 2013.
C. On March 19, 2013 when the termination of the instant No. 1 and No. 2 contract, the Plaintiff’s unpaid charges against the Defendant at the time of the termination of the instant contract was KRW 1,196,280 in total, and KRW 1,194,850 in total, and the present amount is the same.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The three-year short-term extinctive prescription shall apply to the Plaintiff’s obligation under the instant contract Nos. 1 and 2 against the Defendant. Since it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of three years from March 19, 2013, which was the date of termination of the instant contract No. 1 and 2, each obligation under the instant contract Nos. 1 and 2 against the Defendant was extinguished by prescription.
B. On June 4, 2015, the Plaintiff received a report on the identity theft of the instant contract Nos. 1 and 2 from the Defendant.
After that, with respect to the instant first contract, the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant on August 1, 2017 and confirmed the unpaid charge, and contacted the Defendant on July 19, 2018 and issued the documents, such as the certificate of registered matters of the use contract, and confirmed the unpaid charge by contact with the Defendant on August 3, 2018.
In addition, with respect to the second contract of this case, the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant on July 17, 2017, confirmed the result of the receipt of the identity theft, and confirmed the obligation to the Defendant on July 19, 2018.