(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.05.10 2017나33924

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.05.10 2017나33924

계약대금반환

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Defendant with the content that the Defendant designs the goods failure of “C” operated by the Plaintiff’s mother and produces the Internet homepage (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. The Plaintiff’s payment of the instant contract to the Defendant, KRW 300,000, respectively, on May 20, 2010 and May 25, 201, and the same year

7.9.1,500,000 won, total of 3,100,000 won on November 12 of the same year, were paid.

C. Around November 2010, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with a proposal containing a work plan, etc. regarding the instant contract, provided a design drawing for the package of goods, joined a website called “cafe24” to create the website, and provided a design drawing for the package of goods as modified to the Plaintiff on August 20, 201.

However, the Plaintiff did not choose the above draft design on the ground that the design design draft for the goods package offered by the Defendant did not reach the originally anticipated content or level, and around September 2012, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return KRW 3,100,000 paid as the price for the instant contract to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The design design design design design design draft presented by the Plaintiff was at a level to the extent that the purpose of the instant contract could not be achieved, and the Defendant refused to implement any of the instant contract, and the Plaintiff cancelled the instant contract on the grounds attributable to the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant should return the service price of KRW 3,100,000 to the Plaintiff.

Even if there is no reason attributable to the defendant

Even if the Plaintiff terminated the contract as to the non-performance of the contract, the Defendant’s performance.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.08 2014가단156017

-서울남부지방법원 2020.07.22 2020고정112

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.02.12 2014가단216842

-대구지방법원 2020.04.08 2019나318247

-수원지방법원 2014.12.11 2014나10363