beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Grounds for claim;
A. On April 2013, the Defendant and B entered into a sales contract for mobile communications services and for the installment of a device with respect to “B” mobile phone. At the time of entering into the contract, the Defendant’s employee exempted the amount of the mobile phone from the amount of KRW 100,000 per month, and notified the Plaintiff of the amount of KRW 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won per month. Therefore, the Defendant must return the amount of KRW 1,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff. (2) On October 2010, 2013, the Defendant and the Defendant entered into a sales contract for the purchase of a mobile phone and the installment of a device with “C” mobile phone. At the time of entering into the contract, the Defendant’s employee notified the Plaintiff’s amount of KRW 7,000,000,00 in Incheon Detention.
Therefore, the defendant must return 70,000 won of the mobile phone price to the plaintiff.
B. The reason why the Plaintiff did not pay consolation money and communications fees is because of the excessive installment payments and communications fees for the two mobile phones, and was unfairly reduced in the Incheon detention center. The Defendant suspended the “C” mobile phone and seized money corresponding to installment payments, etc. on the ground that installment payments, etc. were not paid, thereby causing mental damage to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of five million won to the plaintiff.
2. Determination
A. (1) If the Defendant used the mobile phone for more than 100,000 won per month, the Defendant exempted the Plaintiff from the mobile phone price, or there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the mobile phone price differently from the actual amount. (2) Even if the Plaintiff was unable to use the mobile phone due to personal reasons, the Defendant does not constitute a ground for returning the mobile phone price to the Plaintiff.
3..