(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.12 2015가단100578

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.12 2015가단100578

광고대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Grounds for claiming the plaintiff

A. The Plaintiff, upon August 2014, conducted an advertisement equivalent to KRW 22,00,00 (including value added tax) in the Central Dailybook, which was published by the Defendant, from September 1, 2014 to October 22, 2014, for the successful hosting and activation of 2014 International Denmark (hereinafter “201”).

B. The Plaintiff, from the Defendant on September 30, 2014, issued each tax invoice of KRW 15,000,000,000, and KRW 5,000,000 as of October 20, 2014, and entered into a contract for newspaper advertising with the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the advertising price stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff.

2. It is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff entered into an advertising service contract with the Defendant for the purpose of promoting the successful holding and activation of the EXE solely on the basis of the descriptions of Gap 1 and 4 (including paper numbers) and the testimony of Gap 1 and witness Gap. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

On the other hand, according to the Eul's proposal on September 2, 2014, the defendant took charge of raising 250 copies of the company participating in the EXE as well as the management of all administrative affairs and funds with respect to the EXE in this case, and the plaintiff is in charge of public relations (accidents, planning articles, etc.) through JMt Group to recruit more than 20 parts of the company participating in the defendant's member company, and the non-party corporation was to jointly recruit more than 10 parts of the defendant's member company through exhibition planning and operation, promotion, advertisement, budget operation, etc., and the non-party corporation agreed that the non-party corporation will act as one of the parties' member companies to recruit more than 10 parts of the defendant's member company in collaboration with the plaintiff, and in this regard, the defendant agreed that the defendant will bear the duty to pay advertising

There is no basis to regard that the existence of the obligation to pay advertising prices has been approved.

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.06 2017나87649

-부산지방법원동부지원 2015.09.15 2014가단212225

-서울동부지방법원 2018.03.14 2016가단147140

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.13 2015가합512826

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.15 2015가합570617