logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.07 2016가단5134931
채무부존재확인
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 25, 2016, the Plaintiff’s name entered into a contract for the sale of a mobile phone unit and a service contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) and the phone number B was assigned to the said device.

B. On March 25, 2016, the Plaintiff’s name entered into a contract for the sale of mobile phone devices and the use of services with Defendant ACCN Korea Limited Company (hereinafter “instant contract”) (hereinafter “instant secondary contract”), and the phone number C was allocated to the said device.

C. The contract Nos. 1 and 2 of this case was made through an Internet website. In such a case, the Defendants need to go through the procedure of identification by either “a digital signature method based on an authorized certificate for personal use” or “a credit card provider’s identity certification method (in the form of inputting the name, resident registration number, card number, validity period, and password).”

The contract Nos. 1 and 2 of this case was concluded after the identification was made by credit card identity certification method, and all the Plaintiff’s credit card information was normally entered in the identification process.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have concluded a contract with the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and since any group used his name and personal information to purchase a device from the Defendants and use it as a mobile phone service, the Plaintiff did not bear the mobile telephone usage fee and the installment of the obligation of a device under the contract Nos. 1 and 2.

B. The Defendants’ assertion Nos. 1 and 2 contracts of this case were conducted by the credit card identity verification method. However, in order to pass the above procedure, the Plaintiff’s credit card password that is difficult to identify by a third party.

arrow