logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.07.04 2017나2001859
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the phrase “10 million won” in Part 4, Section 15, Section 4, Section 15, Section 100, and the phrase “100,000,100,” and (b) the phrase “100,000,000,000” in the first instance court’s decision is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion added in the first instance court as

2. The Plaintiff asserts that even though the contract term of the instant contract was set from September 1, 2015 to October 31, 2015, the Defendant unilaterally suspended the order and did not issue an additional order subsequent thereto without any agreement. This constitutes an “unfair revocation of entrustment” under Article 8(1)1 of the Subcontract Act, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate for KRW 125,977,146, which is the amount of damage equivalent to the trust profits suffered by the Plaintiff around October 2015.

The term "unfair revocation of entrustment" under Article 8 (1) 1 of the Subcontract Act means an act of voluntarily cancelling or altering the entrustment after the principal contractor unilaterally notifies the principal contractor of the suspension of manufacture at the time when the subcontractor unilaterally performs the manufacturing process after the principal contractor entrusts the subcontractor with the manufacture, and unilaterally cancels or entrusts the manufacture, after which the principal contractor entrusts the manufacture. Even in the Plaintiff's assertion, even if the contract term of the instant contract is until October 31, 2015, the issue is whether the Plaintiff fails to additionally entrust the Plaintiff with the manufacture after the date of the entrustment of manufacture is raised. Thus, the circumstance cited by the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff arbitrarily cancels or alters the entrustment of manufacture, etc." under Article 8 (1) 1 of the Subcontract Act.

arrow