광고대금
1. The Defendants jointly and severally committed against the Plaintiff KRW 91,575,00 and Defendant A Co., Ltd. from March 1, 2016.
1. On October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an advertising solicitation agreement (hereinafter “instant advertising agreement”) with Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on the advertisement for the sale of housing of the said company by stipulating that “the general form, size, one advertising fee of KRW 30,525,00, three times, total advertising price of KRW 91,575,00, and the payment deadline of KRW 91,575,00, and the payment deadline of KRW 15, 2015,” and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation to pay the above advertising price to the Plaintiff.
In accordance with the contents of the instant advertising contract, the Plaintiff published the advertisement advertisement of the Defendant Company’s housing in Cr. 13 pages, Dr. 7 pages, Er. 13 pages, and published the advertisement of news articles for the Defendant Company in Cr. and Fr.
[Reasons for Recognition] With respect to Defendant Company: A without dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings as to Defendant B: deemed confession
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 91,575,000 and the amount of damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 21, 2016 to the date of service of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, to the Defendant Company from March 1, 2016, and to the date of full payment, to the day of full payment.
B. Determination 1 on the defense of the defendant company 1) The defendant company's defense was published three times or more, and the advertisement was agreed to be published on the front side of the newspaper of the plaintiff, and did not comply with this. 2) The plaintiff did not comply with this. 3 times or more, and there is no evidence to support the fact that the plaintiff published the article advertisement for the defendant company at least three times, and that the sale advertisement of the defendant company was made by posting on the front back of the plaintiff's newspaper. Thus, the defense of the defendant company is groundless.
3. If so, the Plaintiff’s instant case.