2013 Ghana 58726 Confirmation of Non-existence of Obligation

○ Kim

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 2 others

Co. *****

Attorney Kim Sang-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Law Firm Jungwon, Attorney Park Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant

May 13, 2014

June 10, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A mobile phone (010 - 5729 - ***,010- 5728 - MaMa*) use of the Plaintiff's mobile phone against the Defendant.

obligations, such as fees for mobile phone use, installment charges, mobile phone small-sum payment, overdue charges, etc.

I confirm that the existence does not exist.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s name 010- 5729- -***, 010- 010- 5728-****** each contract of this case (hereinafter referred to as “each contract of this case”) entered into an accession to and a contract to sell a mobile device provided by the Defendant with respect to each mobile phone.

B. The offer of each of the instant contracts was made in the online application form, and the identification of each of the instant contracts was used in the credit card certification method.

C. The identification by a credit card certification method is conducted by means of inputting personal information, such as the principal’s resident registration number, the credit card number, and the personal identification number of the principal, and inputting the official identification number separately. At the time of each of the instant contracts, all the Plaintiff’s credit card certification information was normally input.

D. On September 14, 2012, the Plaintiff reported the damage to the purport that “the Plaintiff was using a mobile phone by stealing the Plaintiff’s name by stealing the Plaintiff’s name.”

E. As of October 30, 2013, the mobile phone price, user fee, and small-sum settlement amount imposed under each of the instant contracts are KRW 5,785,170 in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 through 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff 1) and each of the contracts of this case concluded by the plaintiff 1 by stealing the name of the plaintiff, and it is not effective for the plaintiff. Thus, there is no obligation based on each of the contracts of this case against the defendant.

2) Defendant and each of the instant contracts was lawfully concluded by means of inputting personal information, such as Plaintiff’s credit card information and official identification number, and thus, it does not constitute the identity theft, and accordingly, the Plaintiff bears a debt based on each of the instant contracts.

B. Determination

1) According to the above basic facts, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay unpaid communications charges, etc. to the Defendant as a subscriber to mobile phone services provided by the Defendant, barring any special circumstance. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into each of the instant contracts by stealing the Plaintiff’s name. However, as seen earlier, in light of the fact that the method of identification by a credit card ought to know personal information, such as the card password, and that the identification number should be entered, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion solely on the ground that the Plaintiff reported damage to the purport that the Plaintiff was subject to the identity theft

2) Even if the non-indicted 2 of Article 7(2)2 of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions concluded each contract of this case by stealing the plaintiff's name in the name of the plaintiff, if the received electronic document was sent by the addressee through a person who has a justifiable reason to believe that it was based on the will of the originator or his agent, the addressee of the electronic document may regard it as the originator's and act as the addressee. According to the evidence No. 1-2 of this case, the plaintiff made a statement in the police, and the plaintiff stated that he issued the passbook copy, identification card copy, resident registration certificate, etc. to obtain the loan. According to the above statement, the plaintiff informed the defendant of important personal information to secure the safety and reliability of electronic transaction while granting the basic power of attorney as to the loan to the non-indicted, and the defendant made a contract of this case through the Internet homepage with his own personal information and credit card verification procedure other than the plaintiff's expression of intent and the defendant's consent to each of the above contracts of this case.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is groundless, and it is dismissed.

Judges Lee Young-chul