2014Da210098 Claims

Elmmchemical Co., Ltd.

ELS Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na2018286 Decided April 3, 2014

August 29, 2016

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in full view of the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the court below determined that Article 2 (5) of the Division Plan of this case and Article 2 (2) of the Agreement of this case are valid as a provision that imposes penalty surcharges on both the plaintiff and the defendant, separate from what is imposed under public law, in the case where a penalty surcharge is imposed after the company division, due to unfair collaborative acts before the company division of this case and their factual facts. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the Supreme Court precedents or by misapprehending the legal principles on the legal nature

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Gin-young

Chief Justice Lee Ki-taik