logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.01.15 2015나2016543
물품대금
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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation supplying VoIP (Voccl, Internet telephone, or voice tag network) and data neting-related products, whose main office is located in Israv but but Audiocode Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Audiocode Korea”) (hereinafter “Audioco Korea”) is a separate corporation established pursuant to the laws of the Republic of Korea for the purpose of importing and exporting software and electronic equipment, and is a separate Korean branch office.

The defendant is a company established under the law of the Republic of Korea on April 4, 201 for the purpose of creative production and construction business, telecommunications equipment sales business, hardware construction and sales business, software development business, etc.

B. Around February 2012, Audio Business Korea granted the Defendant the right to sell VoIP and data database-related products produced by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant products”) preferentially to other agencies in Korea, and the Defendant entered into a sales agency agreement with the Defendant to guarantee the order of the total US$ 1,000,000 (hereinafter “US”) to audio business Korea by December 2012.

The general agency contract prepared at the time is described respectively as the first order date February 15, 2012, the second order date, June 7, 2012, and the third order date on September 7, 2012.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant ordered the instant goods by way of delivering the order form to the Plaintiff via Audiocomes Korea from around that time. From June 2012, the Defendant ordered the instant goods by means of directly accessing the Plaintiff’s Internet website called iCRM and inputting the details of the order.

The Plaintiff received a second order from the Defendant around June 2012 and received a second order on June 12, 2012 and the same year.

6. 28. The following table to the Defendant:

arrow