beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff, Blue Entertainment, Inc. and the Defendant Ireland Co., Ltd.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments with respect to the matters alleged in the trial by Plaintiff Bluund Entertainment Entertainment and Defendant Ireland Co., Ltd., Ltd., as well as the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. As to the plaintiff company's assertion, even though the plaintiffs knew of the fact that the motion pictures of this case can be used for publicity of the mining composition of this case under normal industry practices, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs notified the above D or the defendant company that they concluded a model contract with E, or that they had a duty of care to express their intent to not use the motion pictures of this case for advertising purposes, and therefore, comparative negligence based on such premise is unfair. Rather, the defendant Eul, the sponsoring agency, did not take measures against the defendant company under a direct contract with the defendant that used the motion pictures of this case for the purpose of confirming their motion pictures for the purpose of using them for advertising purposes.
The negligence in the public health room and negligence is not a strong negligence, such as the negligence of the perpetrator, but a breach of duty is not a strong negligence, and a weak obligation required in community life in accordance with the social common sense or the good faith principle, and it means neglecting the care to prevent the victim's own disadvantage.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da52469, Feb. 26, 1992). Therefore, it cannot be deemed unreasonable to recognize the Plaintiff Company’s duty of care to prevent one’s disadvantage, which means the weak care as a ground for offsetting the Plaintiff Company’s negligence.
In addition, the purpose of the defendant B is to confirm whether the defendant corporation was properly supported.