beta
Text
1. The Defendant each of the Plaintiffs’ KRW 50 million and the Plaintiff Company from July 11, 2012, and the Plaintiff Company.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 4, 2012, Plaintiff A entered into a contract on the branch office relationship between the Defendant and the Defendant for the supply of smart videos and CF mailers, etc. (hereinafter “instant equipment”), which are devices and equipment related to smart TV, and selling them to the Gu of Seongbuk-si, Sungnam-si, with the Defendant at the cost of opening, and paid KRW 50 million in total,00,000,000,000,000 on April 4, 2012 to the Defendant at the cost of opening.
B. On April 25, 2012, Cheongi-ro Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”) entered into a contract on the branch relationship between the Defendant and the Defendant supplied the instant equipment and selling it to Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant branch contract”) and paid the Defendant KRW 50 million at the expense of the establishment of the Defendant, KRW 25 million on April 25, 2012, KRW 500,000,000,000 on May 4, 2012, KRW 12,70,000,000 on July 12, 2012, 2012, KRW 50 million on July 20, 2012, and KRW 50 million on July 20, 2012.
C. On March 21, 2013, the Defendant agreed to supply the instant devices to May 30, 2013, separate from Plaintiff A, until May 30, 2013. However, the Defendant did not supply the instant devices to the Plaintiffs, except for the supply of the instant devices to Plaintiff A, including one device delivered as a prototype on April 2, 2012.
[Based on Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-6 (Evidence 4-5, Eul evidence 6-7, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination, since the Defendant failed to supply the instant devices under the instant branch contract, it is reasonable to view that the instant branch contract was cancelled due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation by serving the copy of the instant complaint on the Plaintiffs.
As to this, the defendant has completed 620 production of the instant apparatus by December 30, 2012 and 50.