기술지원약정에기한 권리,의무 존재확인 등
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the Plaintiff A’s claim is revoked, and all of the claims against the Defendants of the Plaintiff.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) the Defendant Company C (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) of the first instance judgment No. 2, No. 19 (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) shall be deemed to be the Plaintiff Company; (b) the Defendant Company C of the third, 1, and 2 of the third, 25 (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) shall be deemed to be the Defendant Company; (c) the term “the duration of the existence of the agreement under Article 8” of the fourth, 25 shall be deemed to be “the duration of the agreement” of Article 8; and (d) the fifth, 13 of the 5th, as “the notice of termination reached A”; and (c) shall be deemed to have reached the Plaintiff on the same day; and therefore, (d) the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Defendant Company’s notice of termination on November 27, 2012 regarding the instant technical assistance agreement on November 27, 2012 is null and void, as there is no justifiable reason.
Therefore, the instant technical assistance agreement still remains valid and the rights and obligations based on the said agreement exist, and the Plaintiff A has a benefit to seek confirmation against the Defendants disputing such agreement.
B. The Defendants: (a) committed a breach of trust, such as deceiving Defendant Company and attaching unfair mathy in carrying out “support for the purchase of facilities,” which is a duty to receive remuneration under the instant technical assistance agreement; (b) caused inappropriate advice to Defendant Company’s officers and employees including Defendant D; and (c) faithfully performed technical assistance under the instant technical assistance agreement; (b) even if the contract is terminated due to breach of the duty under the agreement, or does not fall under the grounds for termination of the agreement, the said reasons are to the extent that it is difficult to maintain the contractual relationship as they were destroyed by destroying the fiduciary relationship, which serves as the basis for the contract, and thus, constitutes grounds for termination.
Based on this, the defendant.