beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims against the defendant are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence 1-1 and 5, the plaintiff limited liability company and the defendant, the plaintiff limited liability company and the defendant, and the defendant is a company incorporated under the law of Japan, and the defendant is a company incorporated under the law of the Republic of Korea. Thus, since this case is a legal relationship with foreign elements, the governing law should be determined under the private international law.
Article 26(1) of the Private International Act provides, “If the parties concerned fail to choose the applicable law, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country most closely related to the contract.” Since the content of the contract asserted by the Plaintiff Company was supplied to the Defendant located in the Republic of Korea by the Plaintiff Company, it can be deemed that the law of the Republic of Korea is most closely related to
In addition, Article 31 of the Private International Act provides that "the unjust enrichment shall be governed by the law of the place where the profit occurred," and Article 32 (1) of the Private International Act provides that "the law of the place where the act was committed," and since both the defendant's profit and tort alleged by the plaintiff company are the Republic of Korea, it is reasonable to view that the governing law of this case between the plaintiff company
2. Determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff Company
A. The plaintiff company's assertion as to the primary claim is that the goods supply contract was formed between the plaintiff company and the defendant and the defendant, or that the defendant supplied military diapers supplied by the plaintiff company through an agency, and it does not correspond to the domestic affairs.
Even with respect to the goods supply contract concluded between C and the Plaintiff Company, who is an employee of the Defendant.