logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.02.06 2013가합204948
판매수수료 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who registered his/her business with the trade name “B,” and the Defendant is a corporation with the purpose of research and development of medical devices.

B. On February 15, 2011, a contract was concluded between the Defendant and the Defendant under which the Defendant would develop, manufacture, and exclusively supply the term “C” (hereinafter “instant commodity supply contract”), a multi-level projector device, and the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff the sales commission of KRW 150,00 (excluding value-added tax) per unit C1) in return for consulting services related to the instant commodity supply contract (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. Since then, the above “C” was changed to the name “D” (hereinafter “C”) of the instant medical device.

The Defendant supplied the instant medical device to the temporary temperature pursuant to the instant goods supply contract, and paid the Plaintiff sales commission of KRW 54,669,760 in total from February 23, 2011 to February 7, 2012 under the instant contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant agreed to the Seoul Central District Court as the competent court in the event of a dispute arising in connection with the above contract at the time of the contract of this case. The lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed in violation of the above exclusive jurisdiction agreement.

B. According to the evidence No. 2, if a dispute arises between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the Seoul Central District Court at the time of the instant contract, it is recognized that the Seoul Central District Court should have jurisdiction over the said contract, but it is unclear whether the jurisdiction agreement is exclusive agreement or additional agreement, one of the competing courts of law shall be specified.

arrow