(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.06.08 2017나62715

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.06.08 2017나62715

손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. On September 22, 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion that changed the mobile phone rate system with the Defendant on September 22, 2015, but thereafter, the Defendant applied the changed rate system to the Plaintiff continuously until February 2, 2017.

However, since the monthly difference between the Plaintiff’s modified rate system and the existing rate system is KRW 28,490 (=65,890 - 37,400), the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for damages corresponding to the difference between the 16-month difference from November 2015 to February 2017 (=28,490 x 16).

B. According to the voice files of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and evidence Nos. 3, the Plaintiff asked on August 26, 2015 that the data can be changed to the data unlimited between the month in which the mobile phone fare system can be used by phone call to the Defendant Customer Center. The Defendant’s employee informed that there was a method of applying for an additional service called an internal option if only one month is used without limit, and the Plaintiff wants to change to the fee system provided without limit instead of applying for additional service. The Plaintiff confirmed that the said employee again confirmed that “I wish to change to the fee system provided without limit,” and explained that “I wish to change to the fee system without limit, I wish to change to the fee system without limit,” and the said employee explained that “I wish to change to the fee system without limit,” and the Plaintiff requested immediately change to the fee system without limit. The Defendant’s employee stated that the Plaintiff should not make a request for change to the fee system again, and that “I wish to answer.”

According to the above facts of recognition, since the plaintiff changed the rate system without fixing a period, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the rate system should be changed only between one month and one month is without merit.

2. Conclusion, the claim of this case must be dismissed as it is without merit.

The conclusion of the judgment of the first instance is justified, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원목포지원 2015.06.11 2014가합1275

-서울서부지방법원 2019.10.10 2019나35913

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.16 2016가합529012

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.22 2017나35211

-광주고등법원 2016.01.13 2015나12597