The Fate of the '5G Quality Complaint Lawsuit'... "Please Specify the Grounds for the Claim Clearly"

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] In a lawsuit filed by 5G plan users against the three major mobile carriers over 'poor communication quality,' the court has requested the users to specify the damages in detail.

On the 19th, the Civil Division 23 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Kim Dongbin) held the fourth hearing for the unjust enrichment claim lawsuit filed by about 770 users, including Mr. Kang, against the three carriers SK Telecom, KT, and LG Uplus.

The court told the users' representatives, "It is necessary to further specify the grounds for the claim," adding, "Since it was somewhat known at the time of subscription that 5G did not cover all areas, it is necessary to determine to what extent 5G must be used to constitute a complete benefit and what constitutes an incomplete benefit."

Earlier, 5G plan users filed the lawsuit claiming that the carriers unfairly profited by charging expensive fees while failing to provide proper service. The 5G service, which was first commercialized worldwide in 2019, was of poor quality contrary to advertisements. At that time, there were also criticisms that the number of 5G base stations was significantly lower compared to the 4th generation mobile communication (LTE).

However, issues have arisen regarding the delegation of lawsuits by the users. The users stated, "When initially taking on the case, some wrote the number they had at the time of damage, while others wrote their current number, causing a mix that is being sorted out."

But the court said, "To verify the delegation, the number used at the time of the 5G plan is also necessary," and since the deadline for submitting evidence has been missed several times, some plaintiffs may have to withdraw their lawsuits. The carriers also emphasized, "There are discrepancies in various personal details including phone numbers. Plaintiffs must accurately verify and submit them."

Submission of evidence related to proving damages is also problematic. The users demanded the carriers, "Disclose the ratio of 5G and LTE usage within the data usage. We paid for 5G service, but we want to know proportionally how much was actually used."

On the other hand, the carriers argued that there is no way to verify the monthly data usage ratio between 5G and LTE for users. Since the system switches to 5G when near a 5G base station and to LTE when farther away, it is impossible to extract such data. The carriers also stated that the status of base station installations is a trade secret and cannot be disclosed.

In response, the users appealed, "If the carriers do not provide related information, the plaintiffs have no way to prove their case." The court pointed out, "It is true that it is difficult to specify without data. However, the location of base stations may also be a trade secret," and added, "It is correct that the plaintiffs must specify the grounds for their claim." The next hearing was scheduled for December 7.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.