(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.12.13 2016가단19015

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) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.12.13 2016가단19015

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The request is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, around March 2009, entered into an Internet service subscription agreement with the Defendant and terminated the service around March 20, 2010, when one year elapsed since the Plaintiff used the service.

Nevertheless, during the period from December 2010 to July 15, 2013, the Defendant unfairly withdrawn the Internet service fee of KRW 1,074,267 from the Plaintiff during the nine-month period from the termination date.

The defendant shall compensate for the total amount of 16,074,267 won, which is the sum of 15,000,000 won for property damage and consolation money that the plaintiff suffered by the tort.

B. In addition, the 2016Gadan19015 case, without a contract with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff subscribed to B Internet telephone in the name of the Plaintiff on September 28, 2012 and unjustly withdrawn the fee from the Plaintiff and committed a tort until the termination on February 10, 2015.

The consolation money shall be paid 30 million won.

2. Determination

A. There is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff subscribed to the Defendant’s Internet from March 20, 2010 to March 20, 2010, which was voluntarily terminated by the Plaintiff from March 20, 2010 before December 2010.

In full view of the circumstances, including the fact that monthly rent from December 2010 to July 2013 claimed by the Plaintiff was paid to ARS, paper, and deposit-only account in addition to the automatic bank payment, and the fact that the delivery of the charge was made by mail at the office in which the Plaintiff actually resided (the data attached to the Answer No. 10, 12 and October 17, 2016), it is recognized that the Plaintiff was aware that the Plaintiff was subscribed to the service during this period.

The plaintiff's assertion against this is without merit.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the case No. 19015 No. 2016Gadan19015, the Plaintiff was entrusted by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was an employee C of the Lo Bank Co., Ltd. to act for the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울고법 2014. 6. 11. 선고 2014나2001827 판결

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2020.07.22 2020고정391

-서울북부지방법원 2017.11.21 2017고정1714

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.23 2014가단265645

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2017.06.27 2017나30092