logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.29 2013가단342897
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Around January 6, 2012, a mobile phone service subscription agreement with the Plaintiff (B and C) was concluded via online shopping mall 11 by means of an insured-certified method using an authorized certificate in the name of the Plaintiff for mobile phone services provided by the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”).

B. As the Plaintiff delayed the payment of the above telecommunications charges, the Intervenor claimed insurance money to the Defendant under an insurance contract with the Defendant, namely, a credit insurance contract concluded with the service user, that is, the service user’s failure to perform the payment obligation stipulated in the mobile phone installation and use contract, etc., and thus, the Intervenor claimed for the payment of damages incurred to the Intervenor. On December 17, 2012, the Defendant paid insurance money of KRW 1,676,620 in total to the Intervenor in relation to each of the above mobile phone subscription services.

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

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The main point of the assertion is that a third party entered into a mobile phone service contract by stealing the Plaintiff’s name, and the Plaintiff does not have a debt to the supplementary intervenor.

Nevertheless, the Defendant paid the insurance money to the Intervenor on the premise that the Plaintiff was liable for the above debt, and then demanded the Plaintiff to pay the amount of indemnity equivalent to the amount of the insurance money. Therefore, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that there is no liability for indemnity against the Defendant

B. According to the purport of the entire pleadings, the court of first instance filed a lawsuit against the supplementary intervenor seeking confirmation of the existence of the obligation for the above telecommunications charges and rendered a judgment that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on March 20, 2014 (Seoul Southern District Court 2013Da71580). However, the appellate court rendered an appeal on July 24, 2014, even if the name of the Plaintiff was stolen as the Plaintiff’s assertion, pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Electronic Documents and Transactions Act.

arrow