본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
인천지방법원 2017.05.11 2017나1059

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal



1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation whose purpose is to measure, research, analyze, consult, etc. the industrial environment, and the Defendant is a person who manufactures and sells nanotechnology under the trade name “B.”

B. On December 8, 2014 and May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff conducted a working environment measurement with the Defendant’s permission, and the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff totaling KRW 1220,000 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1.22 million won unpaid fees and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from July 19, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of full payment.

B. 1) The defendant's defense of exemption from the duty to pay fees is justified, in light of the fact that the plaintiff agreed to exempt the defendant from the obligation to pay fees instead of receiving the subsidies from the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it (or, in so doing, the following circumstances recognized by the whole purport of the pleadings, namely, the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency has publicly announced the fact that "it is possible to grant early subsidies from the budget, and only some of the measurement costs may be provided or may be selected and paid in accordance with the criteria for priority selection if the budget exceeds the budget scope."

2) However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s defense that forced measurement was conducted without clearly notifying the Plaintiff of the payment relationship.

3. Conclusion.