beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 134,698,849 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from July 31, 2014 to May 21, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 4, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to the effect that the Plaintiff would have the Plaintiff operating profit of operating the agency from April 1, 2013 until obtaining approval from the Korea Communications Corporation (hereinafter “C”) which is the head office (hereinafter “C”) in a case where the approval is delayed due to the purchase of “C” (hereinafter “instant agency”) at KRW 70,000,000 for the premium.
B. Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant totaling KRW 70,000,000 from March 4, 2013 to March 25, 2013.
C. As to the instant contract, the Plaintiff operated the instant agency under the name of the Defendant since April 1, 2013 without obtaining the approval of the Korea Communications Agency. The revenue and expenditure related to the agency’s operation was already conducted through the bank account (D) and the Nonghyup Bank (E) account in the name of the Defendant used by the Defendant.
On November 14, 2013, Korea Development Bank notified the Defendant of the termination of the agency contract on the ground that “the Defendant caused confusion in the operation of the agency and transferred the authority to operate the agency at will to a third party without the consent of the head office” (hereinafter “instant termination notification”). The instant agency discontinued on January 31, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number in case of additional number), Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) asked the Defendant at the time of the instant contract whether “the name of an agent can be used in the name of a third party, not the actual operator,” and concluded the instant contract by allowing the Defendant to do so. In fact, the agent’s name could not be used in the name of a third party, and it could not be changed in the name of the Plaintiff, as well as the Defendant.