손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant Eul's appeal are all dismissed.
2. B B between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company.
1. The facts under the basis of facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the following descriptions: Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, Eul evidence No. 1 (including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the testimony of the witness F of the first instance trial, as a whole, the whole purport of the pleadings.
[1] The Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing leather products and wholesale and retail business.
Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a corporation established for the purpose of franchise food distribution wholesale and retail business, and Defendant C is the representative director of the Defendant Company.
D is registered as the representative director of K K, and is a person who acts as a director of the defendant company.
On September 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company concluded a contract to produce 20,000 bags (hereinafter “instant E”) where the Plaintiff attached the trademark according to the order-based production method (OEM production method) and deliver it to the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant contract”).
According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff produced the instant bank on September 22, 201, and supplied the Defendant Company with a total of 20,011 (including 32 sampling products supplied on August 2016) including 6,741 units on September 30, 2016, 6,739 units on September 30, 2016, and 6,49 units on October 6, 2016.
[2] On September 4, 2016, with respect to the instant contract, a contract for the supply of goods (Evidence A 2; hereinafter “instant contract for the supply of goods”) was formulated retroactively as of January 4, 2016.
Article 1 (Contract Goods) of the Product Supply Contract of this case states that the Plaintiff supplies 52,00 won per unit price of 52,000 won (excluding value-added tax) to the Defendant Company. Article 4 (Price Payment Terms) of the Product Supply Contract of this case combines the television e-mail using home shopping companies and e-commerces television at the request of the Defendant Company with e-commerces.
No telephone shall be used during TV viewing.