logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.19 2017가합532015
용역보수금 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,471,830 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from January 1, 2017 to April 19, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of running software development business, system, network equipment wholesale and retail business, etc. (2) The Defendant is a company established for the purpose of running automobile accessories manufacturing and selling business.

B. On November 30, 2012, the Plaintiff (HAIS; hereinafter “instant system”) operated by the Defendant for the WEB-based integrated agency operation system (HAIs”);

(2) Around October 2013, the Defendant established the instant system and supplied it to the Defendant, and the Defendant supplied the instant system to the agents that concluded a motor vehicle parts transaction contract with the Defendant. (2) The Defendant was selected as a repair company on October 15, 2013 (hereinafter “instant bid”), and the Plaintiff was selected as a repair company on December 6, 2013.

C. From 2014 to 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract with the Defendant for maintenance and repair of the instant system (hereinafter “instant maintenance and repair contract”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and between the Defendant and the customer designated by the Defendant, including the provision of maintenance and repair services for the instant system (hereinafter “instant maintenance and repair contract”), and the “year maintenance and repair contract” when specifying the pertinent business

(2) The Plaintiff performed the maintenance and repair work of the instant system for three years from 2014 to 2016 according to the instant maintenance and repair contract.

3) On November 29, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the maintenance and repair contract in 2017 was not concluded with the Plaintiff. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 14, and 28, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. Determination as to a claim for damages

A. The Defendant, a summary of the Plaintiff’s primary claim (Claims for damages caused by nonperformance of obligations), for four years from 2014 to 2017.

arrow