logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.13 2017나29407
약정금
Text

1. The following amounts, among the parts concerning the principal lawsuit of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be payable:

Reasons

1. The first instance court dismissed both the Plaintiff’s principal claim and the Defendant’s counterclaim, and only the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal. As such, the part concerning the counterclaim is transferred to the appellate court, but is not included in the subject of the judgment.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation in this part is that the “1. Basic Facts” is the same as the “1. Basic Facts” of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of “the instant video works” following the “(s) No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance” (hereinafter “the instant video works”). As such, this is cited pursuant to the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

3. Judgment on the main claim

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) After entering into the instant video production contract, the Plaintiff supplied several types of video products to the Defendant upon the Defendant’s request for correction and additional work upon commencement of the first modeling supply, reflecting all the Defendant’s requirements, and delivered the last completed video products to the Defendant on December 22, 2013. From January 6, 2014, seven days after the examination period and seven days after the completion of inspection, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff and delay damages for the remainder. (2) When entering into the instant video production contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid KRW 39 million to the Plaintiff as down payment and intermediate payment, and the Plaintiff did not pay the same or higher level of video files to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff notified the production of the production of the video products to the lower level and provided the average level of video products to the Plaintiff on March 21, 2012.

arrow