전속계약효력부존재확인
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.
2. The appeal costs.
1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case, including the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, are as follows: (a) the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except to supplement and add the judgment of the next three, and (b) are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of
2. Revised parts
(a) from 8 to 4 '(the defendant)' under the bottom of 8;
B. Up to April 28, 2013 of the amendment by 8: (a) “Until June 18, 2013 to the Plaintiffs” as follows until June 28, 2013: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24475, Apr. 2, 2013>
C. The total amount of the accounts for the events, etc. held on May 5, 2003 and 6., and for the former, etc. at the end of 8 pages is as follows: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24574, Jul. 31, 2013>
(d)in addition to the nine-way “any other payment made” and to the right side of the nine-way “(if such a deduction or set-off is not justified, as follows):
E. It is difficult to believe that the 9th 8th h e.g. “ difficult to believe” was modified as follows, and according to the testimony of the witness T in charge of financial management as an employee of the Defendant, the Defendant appears to have received the revenue from credit from MBC.
F. The 9th 12 of the 9th 12 acts are amended as follows, and the defendant's former subsidiary of U.S. is working as the representative director of U.S. Co., Ltd. (the change to V., Oct. 2, 2013), and the defendant's operation and the witness W, who was in charge of the plaintiffs' management, testified for the same purpose.
(g) from 9 up to 10 pages “from 10:0 up to 4:00 up to 10:00 up to
(h) It is reasonable to revise the 11th to 11th to 11th 8 pages “,” as follows: Provided, however, it is reasonable to regard the subsidiary officers as stipulated in the Additional Arrangement as not a condition but a fixed term. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on the premise that the subsidiary officers as defined in the Additional Arrangement are a condition of suspension is without merit.
In other words, it is indicated in the subsidiary of the legal act.