beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.11.15 2015가단20933

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. From 2005 to 2010, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff supplied smart and SPkis with the Defendant’s packaging meat in the Defendant’s location; (b) the Defendant promised to make a subsequent settlement of expenses to the Plaintiff; and (c) urged the Plaintiff to dispatch the staff to be engaged in the sales of the packages, etc. supplied by the Plaintiff in smart and SPkis.

Therefore, in order to continue the transaction with the defendant, the plaintiff inevitably caused the employees who entered into an employment contract with themselves to engage in the sales of smart and SP Packaging supplied by the plaintiff in the defendant's location, and paid wages to the above employees.

The Defendant’s act, by taking advantage of the superior position in the transaction, caused the Plaintiff to bear personnel expenses for the employees engaged in the sales business, which constitutes unfair trade practices under the Fair Trade Act and thus null and void. The Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the amount of wages paid from 2005 to 2010 from the employees engaged in the sales business as above, and the Defendant gained profits equivalent to the above wages.

Therefore, the Defendant, as unlawful gains, is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the 42,830,700 won (=the 2005 wage of KRW 13,650,700 for the year 2006 wage of KRW 29,180,00) and damages for delay.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant Chapter 1”) or the Defendant agreed to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay the Plaintiff the sales promotional expenses first, on the packing land supplied by the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff’s salary and promotional expenses (the sales expenses, advertising expenses, etc.). Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to pay KRW 42,830,700, which the Plaintiff seeks in accordance with the above agreement, to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “the second proposal”). 2. Determination on the first proposal.