logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.23 2014나24654
채무부존재확인
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. Basic facts

A. On March 20, 2012, the name of the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the Defendant’s mobile telephone terminal operation and service use (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, and two telephone numbers (B, and C) were assigned.

B. The instant contract was concluded through the Internet shopping mall called “E”, and when an applicant concludes a mobile communications service subscription agreement, such as the instant contract, in the Internet shopping mall, the business is conducted at the stage of the Act on Real Name Certification of Personal Information entered in the Consent Clause. In such a case, the said contract goes through a personal verification process using a “electronic signature based on a certified certificate” method or a “credit card identity certification method” in the applicant’s name (including a name, a resident registration number, a credit card number, a credit card number, a validity period of the said credit card, a CVC number, a password number, and a password number). The subscriber who wishes to obtain the identity certification by a credit card certification method is obliged

C. In the instant contract, the identification certification was conducted by credit card, and a copy of the Plaintiff’s identification card was submitted, and all the Plaintiff’s credit card certification information was input in a normal way.

The Defendant demanded that the Plaintiff pay the amount stated in the purport of the claim by using the mobile telephone fee, etc. according to the instant contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 3, 5, 6 (part) evidence, Eul's 1 to 10, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not enter into the instant contract with the Defendant, nor used a mobile phone by a credit card solicitor who received a copy of the resident registration certificate, a copy of passbook, etc. from the Plaintiff, by stealing the Plaintiff’s name, and used the mobile phone upon entering into the instant contract with the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff is a mobile phone user fee under the instant contract.

arrow