beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.22 2017나91167

기타(금전)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims extended by this court are all dismissed.

2. The appeal cost and this court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the allegation that the plaintiff is dismissed or emphasized or added in this court, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. The third-party 6 to 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows. D.

Since March 11, 2017, the Defendant did not pay KRW 300 million to the sales of diskettes through the Defendant’s comprehensive reservation service system, etc. pursuant to the instant sales agency contract.

B. (1) First of all, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that even if the Plaintiff’s failure to guarantee the Plaintiff’s right to purchase the instant shares in relation to the Defendant’s defense of offset is recognized, the Defendant did not incur any damage to the Defendant regardless of the market price of the instant shares, as long as

However, insofar as the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the obligation to guarantee the option to sell the instant shares under Article 2(2) of the Convention, the Defendant may claim damages against the Plaintiff on this ground, and the profits that the Defendant could have gained through the sale of the instant shares constitute ordinary damages included in the scope of damages.

In this case, the defendant sought damages equivalent to the value of the shares of this case for non-performance of an obligation to purchase or sell the shares of this case against the plaintiff, so the circumstance that the defendant holds the shares of this case does not affect the calculation of the scope of the damages of this case.

(However, when the Plaintiff compensates for the entire value of the shares of this case, the Defendant is subrogated to the shares of this case in accordance with Article 399 of the Civil Code.