(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.05.25 2016나35165

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.05.25 2016나35165

사용료

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked, and

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around January 31, 2007, the Defendant joined the Plaintiff’s exclusive line service and operated the scambling, and terminated the service contract on July 31, 2014.

B. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff service charges of KRW 858,00 (including KRW 429,000 x 2 months and value added tax) during the service coverage period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition of service charges, the defendant must pay 858,000 won to the plaintiff.

Although the defendant asserts that there is no obligation to pay the amount equivalent to the value-added tax on the grounds of the defendant's closure of business, according to the above evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff collects the amount equivalent to the value-added tax from the defendant regardless of the defendant's closure of business, and the defendant agrees to pay the service fee including the value

B. On November 30, 2012, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff should pay KRW 2,074,380 (including value-added tax) to the Plaintiff as penalty (including value-added tax) as a penalty for breach of contract, since the Plaintiff agreed to the insurance coverage period of three years through the re-contract on November 30, 2012 and terminated the service contract without paying a discounted fee.

According to the statements in Gap 3, 7, and 8, when providing Internet service, the plaintiff is operating a service contract with the content that the contract period shall be divided into one year, two years, three years, and five years, and the more discounted service charges shall be paid, but if the insured terminates before the contract period expires, the contract period shall be returned to the insured under the name of penalty for breach of contract. The defendant may accept such contract contents and subscribe to the service.

However, there is a problem.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.08.21 2018나301075

-부산지방법원 2015.09.04 2015나6774

-의정부지방법원 2020.04.14 2019구합12642

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.06.21 2017가단210497

-대전지방법원천안지원 2019.05.22 2018가단112525