1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of Gap's statement and arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap's statement Nos. 1, 2 (part of number), 6 (including number number), Eul evidence No. 3, the defendant entered into a contract under which the defendant would make the plaintiff use of the plaintiff's communications service and pay a communications fee to the plaintiff (hereinafter "the contract of this case") on November 13, 2015 between the plaintiff who purchased the plaintiff's communication service from sunrise and sunrise, and the defendant would make the plaintiff use of the plaintiff's communications service from the above temporary point of time by using the plaintiff's known phone received under the contract of this case. The defendant used the plaintiff's communications service from the above temporary point of time as to June 2017, the unpaid communications fee was 696,71 (including number number number number), and since the cause of the claim of this case was unpaid communications fee up to June 24, 2017, the defendant's payment of the defendant's payment amount is recognized to be paid to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that this contract of this case is used in 15,00 won per month, 70 minutes of voice call, 100 items of letter, and 1.5 items of data. In a case where the user uses data stipulated in the contract of this case in an abnormal excess, the Plaintiff is obligated to notify the Defendant, the contractor, to the Defendant.

In particular, the Defendant stated the Defendant’s telephone number in the “number to contact” column of the instant contract on the premise that the Defendant’s children use the aforementioned alonephone at the time of the instant contract, and thus, the Plaintiff must notify the Defendant of the excessive use of the data using the said phone.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff used the data excessively due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of duties, such as not notifying the Defendant of the use of approximately 44 data around December 2015 by the Defendant’s children as the Defendant’s telephone. As such, the above communications fees are excessive.