logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.05.27 2014가단20663
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 10,00,000 and 5% per annum from June 28, 2014 to May 27, 2015.

Reasons

1. On March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the design development service contract was concluded with the Defendants to develop a total of 26 designs, including the name of the Defendants, by setting the contract amount of KRW 18 million (Additional No. 3). Since the Defendants provided only the design of the name, Romark, Romark, Brazil, and Switzerland, the Defendants are obliged to compensate for the remainder design amount of KRW 14 million as compensation for damages.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 5-1 and 2 as a whole, the defendants entered into a design development service contract (hereinafter "instant contract") with the defendants on March 19, 2014 to develop a design suitable for the contents designated by the plaintiff and to produce and deliver the results of the contract (hereinafter "the instant contract"). The defendants' service contents under the instant contract are name, bags, bags, signboards, seals, placards, placards, placards, placards, height marks, brand marks, brand marks, brand marks, brand reports, Brazil, Karogs, Karogs, three-dimensionals, three-dimensionals, three-dimensionals, pampers, red CDs, red CDs, CDs, CDs, E-cargs, Handbrogs, E-Kagmark, design proposals, two-dimensionals, five-dimensionals, five-dimensional design proposals, six-dimensional design proposals, six-dimensionals, six-dimensional design proposals, five-dimensionals, six-dimensional design proposals, and one-wheeles, six-wheeles of the defendants.

(2) Although the Defendants alleged that they could not perform the contract of this case properly due to the Plaintiff’s fault, the Defendants alleged that they could not perform the contract of this case, the above assertion is without merit.

(B) The Defendant was unable to apply for a documentary evidence and to investigate the documentary evidence due to his failure to appear on the date of pleading of this case.

Scope of compensation for damage;

arrow