용역비
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1-1-26, Gap evidence 2-1-2, Gap evidence 3-8, Gap evidence 9-1 through 3, Gap evidence 11, Gap evidence 14, Gap evidence 15, Eul evidence 15, Eul evidence 15, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 10, and Eul evidence 10.
Around March 2012, 2012, ZEex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ZEex”) requested the production and supply of promotional video works of ZEex (hereinafter “instant promotion video works”) to “H” operated by the Defendant.
B. On March 26, 2012, the Defendant introduced the Plaintiff, who was engaged in the production of the instant promotional video product from G, a producer of the instant promotional video product, and requested the Plaintiff to produce the instant promotional video product on March 26, 2012. Accordingly, around early April 2012, a contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to produce and supply the instant promotional video product at KRW 150,000,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”).
C. Since then, the Plaintiff consulted with the Defendant on the schedule for the production of the instant promotional video works, completed prior work such as scenario planning and constitutional hosting, and completed shootings at the location of the Sstex factory, research institute, etc. from April 12, 2012 to April 17, 2012.
On April 18, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the suspension of the production and the settlement of production costs of the instant promotional videos at the editing stage for the videos taken by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff suspended work under the instant contract.
E. The Defendant produced a promotional video of the ZEex by utilizing some of the images taken by the Plaintiff and used them in D, etc.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. Summary of the Plaintiff’s claim
The Defendant unilaterally suspended the production of the instant promotional video product to the Plaintiff.