logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.06.25 2014가단6984
수수료
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,390,231 and KRW 30,246,180 per annum from March 26, 2014 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that exclusively grants a business right on a DNA work from Ocon, Inc., the copyright holder of the “Isk-Is-Is-Is-Is-Is-Is-Is-Is-I

B. On July 1, 2012, between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff: (a) granted the Defendant the right to establish and operate a “divek” by using a DNA work; and (b) the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff with the content that the Plaintiff shall pay 12% of the sales amount to the Plaintiff at royalties.

From around that time, the defendant operated the diversity B points in Young-si.

C. The royalty unpaid by the Defendant (from February 2, 2013 to October 2013) is KRW 30,246,180, and the agreed delay damages calculated based on February 28, 2014 are KRW 3,14,051.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from March 26, 2014 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, which the Plaintiff seeks with respect to KRW 30,246,180 as of February 28, 2014 (i.e., unpaid royalty 30,246,180) and KRW 30,246,180 as of February 28, 2014.

Although the Defendant presented the royalty higher than ordinary (3 to 5%) level, the Defendant asserted that the instant contract constitutes an unfair juristic act and thus null and void, as the Defendant had already entered into the instant contract in the situation where he had invested a large amount of money for the operation of DNA loan, and thus, the instant contract constitutes an unfair juristic act.

However, it is difficult to view that the royalty rate (12%) stipulated in the contract of this case as the level to which there is a significant imbalance between the performance and the consideration, solely on the basis of the evidence of Nos. 1, 3, and 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the defendant'sNa.

arrow