손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for modification and addition as follows.
(A) The first instance judgment is reasonable even if the Plaintiff’s assertion and the evidence submitted are examined. The reasoning of the first instance judgment is as follows.
2) Paragraph 5 (No. 5 of the first instance judgment) (A. 5) is amended to “Evidence 8 of the first instance judgment”.
The first instance judgment No. 10, 104, 953, 543 won and damages for delay are claimed as KRW 165,964,943, the sum of the damages of the Plaintiff due to the cancellation of the instant performance, and the above amount is claimed as KRW 40,00,953,543 after deducting 40,00 US dollars and 20,000 CAD accrued from the performance in Canada in 2017.
by adding “A”. Section 12 of the first instance judgment No. 12 of the Act No. 12
"The following" is also the same even if the defendant considers together the evidence of Nos. 6, 7, 11, 13 presented by this Court as evidence.
"in addition".
In the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff alleged that “The content of No. 14, No. 9, and No. 10” was a material for settling performance profits between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. However, the evidence No. 17 appears to have been delivered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff by the public performance planning agency of Canada, but it is difficult to view that the evidence No. 7, No. 14 was a material for settling performance profits between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
"Revision..."
No. 14 of the first instance judgment, “The purpose of the Plaintiff is to perform its liability for damages against the Plaintiff” under Article 1 of the Public Performance Contribution Contract (No. 8) of the U.S. Public Performance (Evidence No. 8) is the provision on the Defendant’s liability for damages against the Plaintiff in relation to the cancellation of the public performance in this case. However, Article 3 of the said Public Performance Contribution Contract provides that H’s liability for damages shall be met.