손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 8 to 21, 4) shall be quoted on the grounds of this judgment.
However, some of the following shall be added or added:
[Supplementary Provisions] The following shall be added to the 9th six pages of the judgment of the first instance.
2. Applicable law;
A. In this case, the Plaintiff, a juristic person established under the Japanese law, filed a claim for restitution due to cancellation of the contract, nonperformance of obligations, or tort against the Defendant, a juristic person established under the Korean law, and thus, the governing law should be determined in accordance with the Korean Private International Act.
B. Article 25(1) of the Private International Act provides that “a contract shall be governed by the law of which the parties have chosen explicitly or implicitly,” and Article 32(1) provides that “an illegal act shall be governed by the law of the place where the act was committed,” and the main text of Article 33 provides that “a party may choose Korean law as the governing law by agreement after the occurrence of office management, unjust enrichment and illegal act, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 30 through 32.”
C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the applicable law applicable to this case to the Korean law, and thus the Korean law is the applicable law.
[Supplementary Rule] The 12th 12th 16th 12th 16th 12th 16th 16th 16th 16th 16th 16th 16th 2th 200 of the judgment of the first instance (excluding the 16th 16th 16th 16th 1) are as follows. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to Gap's 22, 23, 31 through 34, 42 through 45, the plaintiff entered into a contract on the development of the system in this case with Copex, Ltd., X-ray, X-ray, Co., Ltd., Ltd., and H after May 2015, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, including the evidence