beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The claims of the principal office added in the trial.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment under Paragraph (2) and Paragraph (2). Thus, the reasoning of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 420
Part V of the judgment of the first instance, “(4,000 bit (49,000 won per set unit price)” in Part V, “P 5 from the end of December 2014 to the beginning of January 2015, 2015” in Part V, “P 5 from December 29, 2014 to December 30, 2014.”
2. Additional determination
A. As to damages caused by infringement of the exclusive sales right, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company entered into a total sales right contract on December 2, 2014, which was prior to the conclusion of the first supply contract. Article 2 of the contract provides that “The Defendant Company shall delegate to the Plaintiff the authority to exercise overall sales of the instant electronic tobacco through home shopping and online channels. The Defendant Company shall supply the products domestically sold to the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, and shall not re-sale or re-contract with a third party without the Plaintiff’s consent only in the distribution channel pursuant to paragraph (1).”
(B) On December 3, 2014, the Plaintiff and J entered into a contract with J to delegate the instant electronic tobacco to the Home shopping and online sales, and the J delegated the instant electronic tobacco to P on December 25, 2014 by way of Q and R channel.
A Co., Ltd. purchased the instant electronic tobacco from the Defendant Company at KRW 69,00 per set, and then finally sold the instant electronic tobacco 1,388 sets through Q from around 00:00 on December 31, 2014 to around 01:00, and received KRW 104,256,000 from Q.
【In the absence of a dispute over a part of the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 25-1 through 4, and the fact-finding results of fact-finding to Q Q Co., Ltd., the whole purport of the pleadings is the establishment and scope of the obligation to compensate for damages.