손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 8,446,022 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from November 24, 2018 to October 16, 2019.
1. Basic facts
A. On January 31, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a broadcast contribution agreement to exclusively contribute to personal broadcasting services operated or designated by the Plaintiff as “BJ” (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
The main contents of the contract of this case are as shown in the attached Form.
(A) “A” and “B” refer to the Defendant. (b)
On February 6, 2017, the Plaintiff paid 5 million won down payment to the Defendant.
【Reasons for Recognition】 Records of Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion did not comply with the contract of this case even though the defendant has a duty to broadcast more than 15 times a month and more than 2 hours and 30 minutes a month.
Pursuant to Article 13(2) of the instant contract, the Defendant shall return KRW 2,732,490, which deducts 2,267,510 as profits from the Defendant’s contribution to the Plaintiff from the down payment of KRW 5 million.
According to the instant contract, the Defendant is obliged to proceed with the total of 180 broadcasts during the contract period, but only 21 times. As such, the Defendant is obliged to compensate for damages equivalent to KRW 17,168,266, which was anticipated to have been accrued by broadcasting 159 times unful performed by the Plaintiff.
3. Determination
A. In full view of the Defendant’s statement No. 3 as to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation, the Defendant’s failure to broadcast more than 15 times a month and more than 2 hours and 30 minutes a time during the contract period of the instant case.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that, due to the instability in the C'C server operated by the plaintiff, the broadcasting has continuously ceased or has been terminated by force, and that, due to the wind that the plaintiff forced the defendant to unfairly exposed broadcasting and delayed profit settlement, the defendant failed to broadcast for the recovery and time limit as stipulated in the contract of this case, so there is no reason attributable to the defendant.
It is recognized that the Plaintiff forced the Defendant to unfairly exposed broadcasting only with the statement of No. 6.