이윤율 삭감 금지 청구의 소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts cited or added in paragraph (2)
2.The following shall be added to the 7th parallels at the bottom of the 4th parallels:
In addition, on August 12, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant did not bear the obligation to pay unjust enrichment and additional dues against the Defendant on restitution of unjust enrichment and the decision to impose additional dues. On April 26, 2018, the Seoul Central District Court filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of an obligation with the Seoul Central District Court (2017Gahap500179). On April 26, 2018, the said court rendered a decision that submitted the cost data in addition to the additional rates of small and medium enterprises constitutes “the cost accounting data and computation errors” as provided by Article 30(1) of the Special Conditions for Purchasing Goods, which are incorporated into the instant contract, but the Plaintiff is partly liable to pay the additional charges on the ground that the said Plaintiff did not have any false awareness of the overlapping calculation. The said decision dismissed the Defendant’s appeal on October 30, 2018 (Seoul High Court Decision 2018Na2028018) and subsequently became final and conclusive on January 16, 2018.
On October 11, 2018, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment that accepted the claim in entirety on the ground that it was unlawful to reduce E’s management effort assessment points on the ground that E’s act of other partner companies, which is a system firm, filed against the Defendant as the purport of the claim for prohibition of profit reduction among the purport of the above provisional disposition claim, is difficult to deem that there was any cost misconduct in the lawsuit filed against the Defendant (Seoul Central District Court 2018Gahap508705). Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is pending in the appellate court (Seoul High Court).