beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 8, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the change of the telephone name with the Defendant to the Plaintiff on the change of the name of B mobile phone from D, the spouse of the Plaintiff, and entered into a contract for the change of the telephone name between the Defendant and the Plaintiff on September 22, 2011.
B. With respect to B mobile phones in the Plaintiff’s name, the content of September 201 and October 201, 201 equivalent to KRW 155,257, and the usage fee of value-added services was imposed. As to C mobile phones, the content and the use fee of value-added services equivalent to the sum of KRW 816,938 was added.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. From September 201 to November 201, 2011, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay the content and value-added service fee of each mobile phone to the Defendant, inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not use each mobile phone as indicated in the purport of the claim from around September 201 to November 201 for any purpose other than domestic voice, even though his name was not the victim of each mobile phone, the content and value-added service usage fee was imposed by stealing the aforementioned mobile phone.
As to the fact that the non-resident used the contents of cartoons, etc. and additional services by stealing each mobile phone of this case, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise. However, in full view of the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, after the plaintiff filed a civil petition as to the cause of the claim of this case, the fact that the contents which the defendant's employee received as a result of verifying each mobile phone as stated in the purport of the claim of this case were left in keeping the contents of the above mobile phone.