손해배상(기)
The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Basic Facts
The plaintiff is a company that aims at manufacturing and selling lighting equipment and related parts, and the defendant DIM was established on August 6, 2008 and is a company that develops and manufactures the LED lighting equipment for the product name video industry called "Lumos". The defendant Stez is a company that aims at selling electronic equipment, developing and selling broadcasting equipment, etc.
On December 13, 2010, the Plaintiff and Defendant DM DM Lart entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff to produce and supply lighting equipment for video industry (broadcasting, advertising, film, etc.) and the Plaintiff to exclusively sell it within the Republic of Korea, and agreed upon Defendant DML as follows: < Amended by Act No. 1017, Dec. 13, 2010>
(hereinafter referred to as "the total sales contract of this case". Accordingly, Defendant DMD received an order from the Plaintiff and produced and supplied RMD products to the Plaintiff.
C. On November 19, 2013, Defendant DM LIM notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant sales contract on the ground that the fiduciary relationship between Defendant DMD and the Plaintiff was broken down.
On November 25, 2013, Defendant M&D entered into a total sales contract with Defendant M&D on M&D products.
[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 11, 12, and 15 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings are asserted by the parties concerned. The plaintiff's assertion that the termination of the contract of this case of this case as of November 19, 2013 of defendant DMD does not have any grounds for termination. Thus, the defendants' expression of intent to terminate the contract of this case as of November 19, 2013 violates the plaintiff's exclusive sales right under the contract of this case, and thus, the defendants' act of entering into the total sales contract as of November 25, 2013 and selling the part of the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above tort against the defendants constitutes a tort. The defendants asserted that the defendants' act constitutes a tort.