2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

On September 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to operate Kwikset service business using the trade name “C” with respect to the stores of gallonian department stores, galian department stores, etc. in Seo-gu Daejeon, and agreed to handle the work at “E” when the Kwikset service text is off, and to cooperate in the way of receiving certain fees.

당일, 오전, 오후택배(2회 배송) 인하건 -당일 택배 2000원 퀵비 인하건 -롯데 ⇔ 타임 RT건 4,000원 ⇒ 3,000원 -롯데, 타임 ⇒ 세이 5,000원 ⇒ 4,000원 원고는 2014. 10. 10.경 거래처 확보를 위한 홍보 목적으로 ‘퀵 당일택배 가격인하’라는 제목으로 아래와 같은 내용의 광고전단지를 제작하여 피고가 거래하는 갤러리아백화점 내 G, H 구두매장, 롯데백화점 내 G 구두매장 등 특정 매장에 배포하였다.

Since the above reduction price is a price that is almost less than profit if it excludes expenses such as oil expenses and communication expenses, it may incur losses if Kwikset service is provided to all businesses at the above price.

On October 12, 2014, the Defendant advertised that the Plaintiff discounted service prices only to certain specific stores for the purpose of public relations, but the Plaintiff thought that the Plaintiff lower the unit price of Kwikset Service, and deducted his business partners. As the Plaintiff discounted the service prices in all stores located in Gallon department stores, lot department stores, and lot department stores, the Plaintiff copied and distributed the above advertising leaflets against multiple stores, such as Gallonian department stores, and I located in lot department stores, as if they discounted the service prices.

The defendant distributed advertising leaflets to the store where the plaintiff did not distribute the advertising leaflets, which differs from the pre-existing transaction price in the transaction partner who had transacted with the plaintiff.