beta
Text
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
Reasons
1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent or apparent to this court, and are apparent in records:
The Plaintiff entered into the instant contract against the Defendant, as the Daegu District Court Decision 2012Gau11915 (Seoul District Court 2012) and the Plaintiff’s mobile phone opening contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) or used the mobile phone opening contract. However, due to the Defendant’s negligence, the Plaintiff neglected his/her identification procedure, and subsequently, the Plaintiff took 827,705 won out of the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Plaintiff for communications fees from March 201 to September 2011. The Plaintiff was suffering from mental disorder due to heavy stress in order to solve the problem thereafter. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff as compensation for damages incurred to the Plaintiff by the Defendant’s tort (i.e., KRW 10,822,705, 805, 705, 705, 1000, and damages for delay).
B. On October 4, 2013, the above court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff shall, as alleged by the Plaintiff, delegate the Plaintiff’s nameless winners to perform all acts necessary for the establishment of the company, and among them, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the business of opening the instant mobile phone. Even if the Plaintiff’s business delegated by the Plaintiff is not included in the business of opening the instant mobile phone, it cannot be said that the Defendant was negligent in believing that the right of representation was established for the above nameless winners, and thus, the Plaintiff shall be held liable for the expressive representation as to the Plaintiff.”
C. The Plaintiff appealed against this and filed an appeal. However, the Daegu District Court rendered an identification card necessary for the Plaintiff to establish the company in the name of the Plaintiff to the under-paid winners of the name cards on June 19, 2014.