2016Gahap80683 Advertising proceeds

A

1. B regional housing association promotion committee;

2. C:

August 7, 2017

November 23, 2017

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 553,126,500 won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from December 8, 2016 to the date of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 22, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an advertising agency service contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant service contract”) with the Defendants with the content that Defendant B’s Regional Housing Association Promotion Committee (hereinafter “Defendant B Housing Promotion Committee”) will enter into force in terms of Defendant C’s wife population D pursuant to the Housing Act, and that Defendant C will act on behalf of the Plaintiff for the advertising business, and that the Defendants will pay advertising expenses in cash within 10 days from the date when the Plaintiff received the claim for advertising expenses based on the Plaintiff’s standard rate table.

B. On July 20, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) around July 20, 2016, the Defendants requested the Defendants to pay KRW 395,00,00 (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) costs for the first advertisement (the period from the conclusion of the instant service contract to April 29, 2016; hereinafter referred to as “the first advertisement”); (b) the second advertisement (the period from May 15, 2016 to May 19, 2016; hereinafter referred to as “the second advertisement”) costs of KRW 120,040,00 (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply); (c) the third advertisement (the period from June 16, 2016 to June 16, 2016 to KRW 50,500 (the aggregate of the value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (5) the third advertisement (the third advertisement costs) costs of KRW 150,5050,50 (the second advertisement).

C. On September 20, 2016, the Defendants made and issued to the Plaintiff a letter of commitment that service charges of KRW 395,000,000 for the instant first advertisement shall be paid up to October 31 of the same year, and that service charges for the instant advertisements of the second and third instances shall be paid after reviewing additional documentary evidence related to the leaflets.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 4, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff conducted the instant advertisement 1, 2, and 3 in accordance with the instant service contract, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid service cost for each of the said advertisements.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

In the promotional materials of the second advertisement of this case, the plaintiff did not make efforts to solve the problem, even though the plaintiff erroneously stated the name of "user" in relation to the indication of regional name, which is the core contents of the advertising prior complex, and the name of some workers in the work site of the second and third advertisements of this case provided to the defendants in relation to the distribution of the leaflet, and there is considerable doubt that the plaintiff could not properly perform the advertising agency business in accordance with the service contract of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot pay the service cost to be claimed by the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. Determination on the first advertisement fee of this case

According to the facts acknowledged as above, and the description and shape of Gap evidence 5-2, the plaintiff performed the first advertising service in this case between April 2016 and September 29, 2016, respectively, and the relevant advertising cost reaches KRW 395,000,000.

As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that, in light of the circumstances such as the distribution of promotional materials of the second and third advertisements of this case, some false indications are made in the work site related to the distribution of promotional materials of the second and third advertisements of this case, there are considerable doubts as to whether the Plaintiff properly provided the service in relation

However, the above grounds for the defendants' deliberation are merely related to the distribution of promotional materials of the advertisements of this case 2 and 3 in itself, and they are related to the primary advertisements of this case.

In light of the fact that there is no objective evidence supporting the aforementioned doubt, and as seen earlier, the Defendants’ itself prepared and delivered a letter of promise to pay the instant first advertising expense to the Plaintiff on the premise that the Defendants performed their proper business activities with respect to the instant first advertising, the Defendants’ such vague suspicion alone does not interfere with the Plaintiff’s fact that the Plaintiff performed the instant first advertising service and the recognition of the said facts as to the advertising expenses.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 395,000,000 for the first advertising cost of this case and delay damages therefor.

B. Determination as to each advertisement fee of this case 2 and 3

1) According to the facts described above, Gap evidence 5-3 and 4, Gap evidence 7-19, and Gap evidence 7-19, respectively, ① with respect to the second advertisement of this case, 90,000 shares for the former part (300,000 shares for distribution of the area for the project, 10,000 shares for the housing promotion center, 680,000 shares for distribution of the area for the project), additional promotional materials, 4,000 shares for contract draft security (gold, 20,000 shares), 1, 20,000 shares for free advertising, 20,000 shares for free advertising groups, 30,000 shares for free advertising groups, 1,000 shares for the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 60,000 shares for 6,000 shares for each of the above areas, 2,50,000 shares for 6,06,000 shares for 6,000 shares for each newspaper publishing.

The facts that were distributed to the Gu, ② the Plaintiff produced 463,00 copies in the former area (10,000 copies for housing publicity center, 363,00 copies for the distribution of the area of the business site) with promotional materials, 2 protrudingners, 1 external wall banner, 363,000 copies for the distribution of the business area in the former area, as well as 363,000 copies for the business area in the above former area, and 363,00 won for the distribution of the business area in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu and Gangdong-gu, Seoul, and about June 16, 2016 through F, which is its subordinate company, around 0, 2016, 30,000 won in each of the above advertising services, and 360,000 won in each of the above advertising services were distributed to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City-si and Gangdong-si, and 30,000 won in each of the above cases.

2) Meanwhile, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 10-1 to 4, and Gap evidence No. 11-1 to 4, it is recognized that the names of some workers are overlapped in the work log related to the distribution of the leafletss for each of the second and third advertisements in this case.

However, in general, considering the characteristics of the work performed by short-term employment for which it is not required to verify strict status due to simple labor, or by the work performed by the work performed by the work performed by the work on the day, it is difficult to expect that all the names of workers listed on the work log on the work log have been recorded in the real name of the relevant work worker. For the same reason, it is insufficient to confirm that there was no work performed by the relevant work worker immediately from the duplicate of the work worker’s name on the part of the work log. Furthermore, the work log mentioned above does not fall under the Plaintiff’s contents of the instant 2 and 3 primary advertising services, and it is merely a document prepared as a supplementary document to grasp the current status of the work performed

In addition, it is insufficient to reverse the recognition of the fact that the Plaintiff performed the instant 2 and 3 advertising services on the basis of the fact that the name of the worker was overlapped in the part of the work that the Defendants pointed out.

In addition, according to Gap evidence No. 5-4's statement and shape, it is recognized that "suspects" was mistakenly written in the front page of the second advertisement of this case as to the indication of the region's name, which is the execution site of the project of this case, once, but considering the circumstances that the above clerical error is only one clerical error in the indication of "large number of people listed in the relevant front page" and the location map of the project is included in the above front page, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the publicity effect of the second advertisement of this case by the above clerical error of this case was more significant than the originally scheduled level in the service contract of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove that the above clerical error of this case was likely to cause confusion as to the execution site of the project of this case from the reader's perspective, and that the above clerical error of this case was not found even after the Defendant reviewed the front page of this case's second advertisement but did not discover the relevant clerical error.

3) Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 120,040,00 for the second advertising expenses of this case, and KRW 60,075,00 for the third advertising expenses of this case, and damages for delay thereof.

C. Sub-committee

According to the above, the defendants jointly and severally agreed to the plaintiff 395,00,000 won for the first advertisement of this case, 120,040,000 won for the second advertisement of this case, and 60,075,000 won for the third advertisement of this case, and value-added tax of 57,51,500 won for the total of 57,51,500 won for the third advertisement of this case (i.e., the total of 575,115,00 won for the third advertisement of this case) (i.e., 632,626,500 won for the total of 575,115,00 won for the third advertisement of this case)

Although the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 79,50,000 among the above money, the Plaintiff is a person who has already received KRW 79,50,000, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining advertising price of KRW 553,126,50,00 (=the advertising price of this case 632,626,50,500 - the advertising price already received 79,50,000), and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 8, 2016 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff after the payment date of the advertising price of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall reverse the judge.

Judgment Notarial Award

Judges Jeon Soo-soo