beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an advertising agent, and the Defendant was a person who closed his business from around 2007 to March 2012 when operating the urology C (hereinafter “instant hospital”).
B. At the Plaintiff’s request for the advertisement, the advertisement of the instant hospital was inserted in D from October 2009 to December 2009.
C. Meanwhile, on July 14, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of the advertising price of the instant hospital in total of KRW 1,100,000,000,000,000,000 from February 10, 201 to March 12, 2011; November 15, 201; November 17, 2011; November 19, 201; and November 22, 2011; and November 24, 2011; and KRW 1,320,00,000,000,00 for the advertising price of the instant hospital inserted in D, respectively (Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2016Da4970, Nov. 17, 201; hereinafter “related lawsuit”); and the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid KRW 3,500,00,00 to the Plaintiff by November 27, 2017.
“Reconciliation,” and the Defendant paid KRW 9 million to the Plaintiff in installments from January 31, 2017 to May 31, 2017, as above, as the content of the Reconciliation.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 1 and 4 (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) from October 2009 to December 2009, the Plaintiff published the advertisement of the instant hospital in D; and (b) the advertising amount is KRW 25,500,000.
Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the advertising price of KRW 25,500,000 and damages for delay.
3. Determination of the cause of the claim No. 1-b.
According to Paragraph (1), the Defendant is obligated to pay the advertising price of the instant hospital published in D from October 2009 to December 2009 to the Plaintiff.
(Provided, however, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the above advertising price as specified). 4. The extinctive prescription period of the Defendant is expired.