logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.09.06 2014가단46689
용역대금
Text

1. The Defendant paid KRW 3,589,90 to the Plaintiff KRW 5% per annum from October 29, 2014 to September 6, 2016.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant: (a) concluded a service contract with the Defendant, including the Defendant’s website, shopping mall design, and C-related design (hereinafter “instant service contract”) on January 2013, and completed it verbally with the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “B”); and (b) concluded a service contract with the Defendant, including the Defendant’s website, shopping mall design, and e-mail.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 37,090,900 won and damages for delay due to the service payment as specified below.

The No. 12,400,000 PT 12,40,00 2 A website, shopping mall design and the result of 1,148,40,400 3 A-A shopping mall additional modification 1,760,000 D- D-Choba design and the result of 9,785,000 D-Choba design and result of 1,500,000 6 Shabababbabbabbbababababs and kimchi photographs 3,916,000,007 Shabababbabbabbabbabbababs 7,740,000 for private persons other than Shabababbabbabbabbbabbabbbbabba 1,741,841,500,090,000

B. The defendant entered into a service contract with the plaintiff on the main new board, name box, franchise, etc., and paid the price in full. The payable amount claimed by the plaintiff is about the transaction details between the plaintiff and the separate company B.

In addition, the Plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit against the Defendant for the service cost related to “E” and was sentenced to the first instance judgment, and thus, the instant lawsuit violates the prohibition of double lawsuit.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 and 2 (including a serial number, if any) as to whether the same constitutes the prohibition of double lawsuit, the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the Defendant, who was the Plaintiff, claiming for the service payment related to “E” under the court No. 2015Kadan10014, and the judgment of the first instance court on December 9, 2015.

arrow