beta
Text
1. It does not exist the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the principal of unlawful use equivalent to KRW 2,085,402 to the Defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From January 25, 2007 to March 23, 2012, the Plaintiff served as the Defendant’s credit card membership recruitment member, and concluded an entrustment contract with the Defendant for membership recruitment business, and agreed to be liable for damages incurred by failing to comply with the rules in performing membership recruitment business.
B. On February 7, 2012, the Plaintiff recruited the deceased B (Death around September 2013) as the Defendant’s card member, and the deceased B used KRW 10,817,764 as cash service and credit purchase amount between February 20, 2013, and claimed that the Defendant Company denied the application for the issuance of a card and the name was stolen on April 2, 2013, while failing to pay KRW 2,085,402.
C. On October 24, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the card issued to B was issued by the Plaintiff due to the theft of name, and there was a cause attributable to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that KRW 2,085,402, which was settled with the said card, should be paid as the principal for unlawful use.
The defendant filed a complaint with C on the grounds that B had filed an application for the issuance of credit cards in the name of B without the consent of B, but C was ruled to be guilty.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 to 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was that he was recruited as the Defendant’s members by receiving the application for the issuance of credit cards from B according to normal procedures, but C did not request C to apply for the issuance of credit cards in the name of B without obtaining the consent from B, or did not allow C to receive the credit card upon receiving the application for the issuance of credit cards from C
B. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff was allowed to use the credit card under the name of C upon the request of C to issue the credit card, and the card holder's identity was verified as the applicant, and the application is written in writing.