logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.28 2018나42179
전단배포대금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff-in-charge (C) agreed that the Defendant, who operates a health club under the name of “D station”, as a company engaging in the business of inserting a leaflet in a daily newspaper, distributed the Defendant’s health club in a daily newspaper, posted a leaflet on the first floor bulletin board, or attached a leaflet on each household’s entrance, and the Defendant paid the price.

B. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 19,717,00 in total on four occasions from November 9, 2016 to May 17, 2017 in return for the above promotional work.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of evidence 1 and 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff performed public relations work equivalent to KRW 37,488,00 from November 28, 2014 to April 18, 2017, and sought payment of KRW 17,771,000 (=37,48,000 - KRW 19,717,000).

On the other hand, the defendant paid the price for the promotional work in which evidentiary materials exist. The defendant asserts that the above part is only the amount unilaterally asserted by the plaintiff, and cannot be confirmed whether the actual promotion was made according to the content of the Kakakao Stockholm, and that the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with due to the lack of sufficient specification of transaction, etc.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff performed the Defendant’s public relations activities from October 3, 2016 to April 18, 2017, and was not paid KRW 17,771,000 out of the price, by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances that can be acknowledged as being comprehensively based on the purport of each entry and the entire pleadings including the virtual number.

① Although the original Defendant did not directly prepare a contract under the above agreement, the price of a large number of small and large amount of transactions and the leaflet that is distributed was determined in advance.

arrow