beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 8,703,00 on January 2017.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserts that, on the ground that the Defendant, an online broadcast operator, paid the amount of KRW 5,297,532 on behalf of C, the Defendant, on behalf of the Plaintiff, paid KRW 5,297,532 to the Defendant (i.e., KRW 4., KRW 797,532, which was the former broadcast operator, on condition that the Defendant performed an exclusive broadcast agreement with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not perform an exclusive broadcast agreement, the Defendant is obligated to return the said amount to the Plaintiff.
However, in paying KRW 5,297,532 in lieu of C, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff agreed that the payment of the said money would be effective when the conditions of the Plaintiff’s assertion are fulfilled. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
2. Determination as to the claim for refund of the amount of KRW 8,703,000 (hereinafter “instant contribution”)’s contribution charges
A. The Plaintiff alleged by the parties that he/she had concluded an exclusive broadcast agreement with the Defendant or expressed his/her intent not to contribute to the Defendant’s broadcast in August 2016 on the condition that the Plaintiff would contribute to the amount of a set of two-month broadcast in the absence of any contractual relationship. The Defendant, upon receiving the said money, expressed his/her intention not to contribute to the broadcast in the middle of September 2016, claiming that the Defendant is liable to return the instant amount to the Plaintiff.
The defendant asserts that the defendant did not enter into an exclusive agreement with C, and only entered into a broadcasting contract as a franchise with C, and that the contribution fee of this case was paid for 7,8 months, which cannot be returned for more than the expiration of the period, and that it was due to the plaintiff's mistake that the plaintiff failed to broadcast for 7,8 months. Thus, the defendant did not have any obligation to return the above money.
B. Whether a contract has been entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no dispute over the nature of the contribution fee of this case, Gap evidence 3, No. 4-1 to 7, No. 6-1 to 5, and Eul evidence No. 1.