logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.08.17 2015가단111960
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, from October 2008, runs a cleaning machine wholesale business and electronic commerce business from October 2008 to “B,” and the Defendant is a company established for the purpose of cleaning goods import business, cleaning goods wholesale and retail business, etc.

B. In around 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded an agency contract with the content that the Defendant supplied and sold household cleaning equipment to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff sold it to its customers and consumers (hereinafter “instant agency contract”). However, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant have lost the instant agency contract, and the transaction relationship therefrom continued until 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 5, Evidence No. 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Upon entering into the instant agency contract around 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant granted exclusive sales rights to the Plaintiff to exclusively sell the Defendant Company’s products in Korea. On August 2014, the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s exclusive sales rights by supplying and selling the Defendant Company’s products to the Defendant Company C, and the Defendant violated the instant agency contract by notifying the Plaintiff that he would terminate the instant agency contract without justifiable grounds and suspending the supply of products.

As such, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 148,148,727 in total amount of KRW 148,148,727 in compensation for damages incurred by the Defendant’s breach of the Defendant’s agency contract, since the amount of permitted expenses, such as consumption efficiency test fees, etc. for the Defendant Company’s products, KRW 104,520,563 in advertising expenses for the Defendant Company’s products, and KRW 8,300,000 in the inventory of finished products, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff compensation for damages incurred thereby.

B. First of all, we examine whether the Defendant granted the Plaintiff the exclusive right to sell the Defendant’s products when concluding the instant agency contract.

arrow