beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.20 2016가단5140530

손해배상(기)

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 August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for a design for the Muan Muan Muan Space at the request of North Korea, setting the service cost of KRW 110 million, and the period as of September 25, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

On August 13, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 55 million on the instant contract, and issued a revised tax invoice with the content that revoked the said tax invoice on August 18, 2015 on the grounds that the “cancellation of the contract” was amended.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 1, No. 2-1, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff completed the design drawing (Evidence A No. 5) under the contract of this case, and the defendant unilaterally reversed the contract, thereby violating the contract. The defendant asserts that he is liable to pay the amount of KRW 5 million, which is the contract price, as compensation for damages.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the contract of this case was rescinded by agreement, and thus it cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

B. As seen earlier, the issuance of the revised tax invoice on the instant contract after the issuance of the tax invoice was impossible, and later the contract was revoked by agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant around August 18, 2015, if the Plaintiff completed the design drawing at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of such fact and requested payment of the price. However, if it is determined that there was no evidence as to the Plaintiff’s aforementioned request until the instant lawsuit was filed, it is reasonable to deem that the instant contract was revoked by agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant around August 18, 2015.

C. The plaintiff's claim for damages of this case based on the premise that the contract of this case remains effective even after its termination is dismissed as it is without merit.