logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.24 2020가단5113443
이용료 등
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 134,620,000 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from April 7, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

The usage fees (including value-added tax) for the date of contract terms and conditions of the contract (including mobile service contracts) shall be KRW 52,800,000 on July 28, 2017 under the D Service Agreement of KRW 1,595,000 on May 16, 2016, and KRW 52,800 on July 28, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a legal entity that engages in software development and supply business, concluded a service contract with the Defendant who conducts Internet education and learning business as follows.

B. On December 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant reduced or exempted KRW 2,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) out of C Service Fees, but agreed to pay the original amount by losing the effect of reduction or exemption if the Defendant fails to pay the service fees more than twice.

C. At least twice thereafter, the Defendant delayed the payment of each of the above service charges, and at least 125,820,000 won, the unpaid amount is 8,800,000 won (including 2,200,000 won x 4 times, and value-added tax).

【Recognition of Fact-finding】 The fact that there is no dispute, entries in Gap's 1, 2, 3, and 4 (including the number of branches), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 125,820,000 and the amount of KRW 134,620,000, which shall not be paid to the plaintiff as well as the amount of KRW 8,800,000, which shall not be paid to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 7, 2020 to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant asserts that he paid part of the above service fees, but the above 125,820,000 won is the remainder of the service fees except for the amount repaid by the defendant, as seen earlier, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant has paid the fees additionally. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. Thus, the claim of this case is reasonable.

arrow