손해배상(기)
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
Defendant.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. 1) A claim against the Defendant Company for the termination of the instant service contract due to the nonperformance of the obligation by the Defendant Company and the Plaintiff for compensation for damages, despite having faithfully performed the service duties prescribed in the instant service contract, the Defendant Company transferred the entire business rights of the instant business to triM, and unilaterally notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant service contract. The aforementioned acts by the Defendant Company constitute grounds for termination of the instant service contract, which constitutes a violation of Article 7(2)1 and 3 of the instant service contract, and the Plaintiff lawfully terminated the instant service contract with the Defendant Company by notification of termination on November 10, 2015. The Plaintiff suffered damages not paid the service cost under the instant service contract. Accordingly, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff for compensation at the rate of KRW 805,000,000,000, after deducting the service cost paid at KRW 135,000,000 from the service cost paid at KRW 135,000,000,000).
In this regard, the defendant company asserts that the plaintiff's above claim is unlawful because it does not have the identity of the original claim for damages and the basis of the claim.
However, the plaintiff's claim is merely a different solution in a dispute over the same economic benefit (payment of unpaid service amount) and the identity of the basis of the claim is recognized.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s addition of the above claim does not seem to significantly delay the litigation procedure.
Therefore, the defendant company's above assertion.