1. The Plaintiff’s mobile phone number (E) based on the mobile communication use contract dated August 19, 2016 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. Around August 19, 2016, an online mobile phone subscription application, which is an electronic document in the Plaintiff’s name, was submitted to the Defendant via the Internet site (F). Upon the Defendant’s consent, a mobile phone subscription contract and a mobile phone installment sales contract (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. At the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, an electronic document originator was sent to verify the identity of the electronic document originator through the “credit card identity certification method (including the entry of two pages prior to the name, date of birth, credit card number, credit card number, validity period of credit card, and password).”

C. On December 28, 2017, the Plaintiff reported the name of the instant contract was stolen by a person who was unaware of his/her name, to the chief of the Kim Sea Police Station. On February 23, 2018, the prosecutor of the original District Prosecutors’ Office issued a disposition of suspending indictment on the grounds that the identity of the person who was unable to receive the above name was not verified, and that there was no benefit in suspending indictment.

Plaintiff

Of the telecommunications charges and terminal bills incurred under the instant contract in the name of the title, the payable amount is 4,063,364 won in total.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant contract was concluded by forgery of the application form in the name of the Plaintiff, and thus null and void against the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff is not liable for the telecommunications charges and the obligation to pay the mobile device bills. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the instant contract is valid since it had undergone the procedure for identification under the relevant statutes at the time of entering into the instant contract.

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims first, claims to deny the fact that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the claim, the defendant, as the creditor, bears the burden of proof

Supreme Court Decision 199Do348 delivered on March 13, 1998