광고대금
1.Paragraph 1 and 2 of the judgment of the first instance shall be amended as follows:
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 34.4.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Determination on the main claim
A. The plaintiff is a company with the objective of indoor advertising business, etc., and the defendant is a merchant who uses the trade name "C".
(2) From August 2005 to October 2010, the Plaintiff entrusted the Defendant with the business of receiving advertising orders and receiving advertising fees among the advertising activities outside the bus in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant consignment contract”). According to the contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, if the Defendant orders the advertising from the advertiser, the Defendant shall immediately deposit the amount deposited from the advertiser, and the Plaintiff shall pay the amount equivalent to 7% of the advertising fees to the Defendant as sales commission.
(3) In 2009, the Korean Commercial Drugs Co., Ltd. requested the advertisement of the Roster Roman bus, and the Korean Commercial Drugs entrusted the first I (J) and K (L) with the advertising fee of KRW 81,960,000, and thereafter, the Plaintiff appears to have been entitled to the advertisement due to the entrustment of the advertisement of the Korean Commercial Drugs.
After receiving the above advertisement amounting to 59,520,000 won through the Defendant, the Plaintiff added the Roculty advertising of oriental medicine to the 62-month bus from July 22, 2009 to September 21, 2009.
On June 17, 2011, the Defendant agreed to deposit the advertising amount of KRW 34,320,000 which was not paid to the Plaintiff by the end of October 2011.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 3, 5 through 8, and 13, and the fact inquiry results of the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's inquiry, and the purport of the whole oral argument
B. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is a judgment of the court of the first instance that held that it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation of this case since May 25, 2012 after serving the original copy of the payment order on the plaintiff as requested by the plaintiff after the due date.