Users who were using mobile phone numbers such as 011 017 filed a lawsuit with SK Telecom to provide 3G communication service without using the 010 station code, but lost in the end.
According to the legal community today (3rd), the second division of the Supreme Court (Judge Min Yu-sook) decided to lose the plaintiff's loss in the 'mobile phone number transfer' lawsuit filed against SK Telecom by 633 people, including user A, of the '010 Anti-Integration Movement Headquarters'. Confirmed.
Previously, in 2002, the government implemented the 'Number Integration Policy', which gave 3G telecommunication service providers an integrated mobile phone number as '010' and required that other identification numbers be retrieved within 5 years.
Due to the implementation of the policy, mobile phone number, which was previously classified as 01n (011, 016, 017, 018, 019), etc., was unified to 010 in 2004 according to government policy and newly issued. I've been using it.
However, in 2019, the Ministry of Science and ICT limited the allowable period for number portability of 01n station numbers to June 2021.
Accordingly, SK Telecom revised some of the terms and conditions, and the terms and conditions include 'Users must agree to change the number to 010 from 3 months before June 30, 2021', 'If you do not switch to the 010 number, stop using and It may result in the termination of authority.”
Then, Mr. A belonging to the '010 Anti-Integration Movement Headquarters' filed a lawsuit stating that the user has the right to maintain the number under the Telecommunications Business Act.
Article 58 Paragraph 1 of the Telecommunications Business Act stipulates that 'The Minister of Science, ICT and Future Planning may establish and implement a plan for number portability so that users can maintain the old number even if they change telecommunications business operators, etc.' Ms. et al. argued that this phrase means 'the mobile operator has an obligation to accept the request to provide 3G service while maintaining the previous identification number'.
However, all 1st and 3rd judges supported SK Telecom.
The court of first instance judged, "It is unreasonable to interpret that Article 58 of the Telecommunications Business Act only mentions 'possibility' and grants users the right to request a service use contract without changing their number." I kept my judgment.
Dissatisfied with this, the '010 Anti-Unification Movement Headquarters' appealed, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, saying, "There is no mistake in the judgment of the original court for misunderstanding the legal principle as the appellant asserts."