beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.06 2015가합6949

손해배상(기) 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 7, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a commodity supply contract with the following content.

(2) The purpose of this contract is to supply the goods stipulated in Article 2 to the Plaintiff and to promote mutual interests and contribute to common prosperity by distributing them to the Plaintiff.

Article 2 (Name, Quantity, and Unit Price) (1) The name, quantity, and unit price of the product that the defendant supplies to the plaintiff shall be as follows:

B B B B B B B B or B B, and the product items mediated are supplied as follows:

③ The product brand name “B” in the product brand name of the Defendant’s goods supplied by the Defendant is the Defendant’s trademark, and the Defendant’s use of the trademark exclusively and exclusively while the Plaintiff is supplied with the product, may not supply any product bearing the above trademark to a third party, and may supply the product to a third party within two months from the date the documents suspending the Plaintiff’s request for the supply of the product arrive at the Defendant.

Article 3 (Payment for Prices and Delivery for Products) In principle, 50% of the total amount of the order ordered shall be paid in cash as down payment to the defendant and 50% of the balance shall be delivered after cash settlement at the time of delivery of the product.

B. From March 9, 2012 to April 18, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 95,000,000 among the down payment under the instant goods contract to the Defendant six times.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant stated that the salesperson is the plaintiff when supplying the product to the plaintiff according to the goods supply contract of this case, and the plaintiff must supply a new product that has not been passed since the date of manufacture. However, the "stock company D" stipulates that the salesperson is the salesperson, and the salesperson's inventory product that has passed one year from the date of manufacture is only indicated as the plaintiff.