손해배상(기)
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
2. The defendant,
A. As to the Plaintiff B, KRW 39,978,614 and this.
1. Basic facts
가. 당사자의 지위 1) 피고는 시유, 발효유, 분유, 치즈 등 유제품과 음료 등을 제조, 판매하는 회사로서, 아래 그림과 같이 전국 1,800여개의 대리점을 통하여 대형 유통점 또는 일반 소매점에 제품을 공급하거나 편의점을 통하여 소비자에게 제품을 공급하고 있다. 피고의 제품 유통 경로 공장 (5개) ⇒ 공장 물류팀 또는 물류센터 ⇒ 대리점 (1800여개) ⇒ ⇒ 대형 유통점 방문판매원 ⇒ ⇒ 소비자 일반 소매점 ⇒ 편의점 ⇒ 2) 원고들은 피고와 대리점 계약을 체결하고, 아래 표 기재와 같이 각 대리점을 운영하면서 피고로부터 제품을 공급받아 판매하였다.
The Plaintiff’s agency type operation period from January 2, 2004 to February 2, 2012, 201, to November 3, 2012, 2004 to December 4, 2011, to October 5, 2004 to October 5, 201, the FR market from January 5, 2004 to April 6, 201, to October 1, 2004 to 1, 2005 to 1, 205 to 3, 2010 from May 7, 2011, to 201 to 1, 205 to 1, 2010 to 1, 300 from June 3, 201 to 3, 201 to 1, 200 to 205 to 3, 201 to 3, 201 to 3, 201 to 3, 201.
As of October 14, 2013, the Fair Trade Commission issued a corrective order and a penalty surcharge of KRW 12,464,00,000 to the agency without prior agreement, recognizing that the Defendant had forced the agency to purchase 26 items, including the rental, from January 1, 2009 to April 30, 2013. From July 5, 2013, the Fair Trade Commission issued a corrective order and issued a payment order of KRW 12,464,00,00 to the agency without any prior agreement, by recognizing that the display promotion personnel dispatched to a large distributor to the agency for 50% or more of the wages of the display promotion personnel (the Defendant was subject to a corrective order issued by the Fair Trade Commission on December 6, 2006).
(2) The Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the foregoing penalty surcharge payment order with Seoul High Court 2014Nu1910, and the said court on January 30, 2015 with respect to the total quantity of items purchased on January 26, 2015.