손해배상
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts written by the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
From 8th to 19th of the judgment of the first instance shall be as follows.
As the Plaintiff rescinded the instant contract by serving the duplicate of the instant complaint or the Plaintiff’s written brief as of August 25, 2015 on the ground of Defendant B’s nonperformance as above, Defendant B is obligated to return the advance amount of USD 1,300,000 to the Plaintiff due to restitution following the rescission of the contract, and to pay the Plaintiff the damages amount of USD 2,60,000,000 in total, as well as the damages amount of USD 1,30,000 in total for damages under Article 8 of the instant contract as compensation for damages.
(The portion of the claim on USD 1,300,000 in the above claim is deemed to be subsequent in Paragraph 4).
A. 1) The principal lawsuit of this case is a Korean corporation, seeking compensation for damages or refund of advance due to the cancellation of the contract due to Defendant B’s nonperformance of obligation against Defendant B, which is a Chinese corporation, and Defendant C, a Chinese corporation, seeking the return of such damages or advance payment on the premise that Defendant C is the same company as that of Defendant B. The instant counterclaim is against the Plaintiff, a Chinese corporation, seeking compensation for damages due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation, and the Defendants, a Chinese corporation, seeking compensation for damages due to tort. As such, the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim fall under the case with foreign elements, and thus, the governing law shall be determined in accordance with the International Judicial Act. 2) Article 26(1) of the International Judicial Act provides that “Where the parties fail to choose the governing law, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country most closely related to the contract.”