beta
Text
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in total.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows, and the reasoning for this part is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the first instance, and such reasoning is accepted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. The 3rd letter box's "business obligation of the plaintiff" shall be "business and duty of the plaintiff".
5 pages 1 through 7, and 11 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Specifics, "A" shall be deemed to be "Evidences 1 through 6, 11, and 1 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Specifics."
2. According to the above facts finding as to the claim on the main claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 59,769,600 (i.e., the amount of KRW 24,618,00 for the goods that was paid on June 2015) and the amount of KRW 35,151,60 for the goods that was paid on August 2015 (i.e., the amount of KRW 35,151,600 for the goods that was paid on June 2015) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from November 11, 2015 to the date of full payment.
3. Judgment on the defendant's counterclaim and the defense of set-off
A. Defendant A) under Article 2(1)(c) of the instant contract, the Plaintiff had a duty to guarantee the Defendant’s exclusive right to sell the instant products to customers in the Defendant’s exclusive sales area, such as I Hospital, Jsung branch, and K Hospital, even though the Plaintiff had a duty to guarantee the Defendant’s exclusive right to sell the entire area of the 11 Seoul Metropolitan Government, 586,844 won - 10,560,000 won (based on the sales rate of less than KRW 297,57,299) multiplied by the Plaintiff’s sales of the customers in the Defendant’s exclusive sales area (25,567,299 won), due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance or tort, the Defendant sustained less than KRW 297,586,844 won - 10,560,000 (based on the sales rate of the medical device total amount of less than KRW 375,375,505,000) [the total sales rate of KRW 365,57575,4505.
B. In addition, the plaintiff set the monthly average order amount under Article 6 of the contract of this case and the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.