logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.06 2016가합576445
중재판정취소 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The original Defendant’s relationship and the conclusion of a contract 1) The original Defendant’s video caller (including the transmitter, receiver, and chargeer; hereinafter “instant product”) for advertising on May 12, 2010 and November 16, 2010.

(2) On May 11, 201, the Defendant entered into an entrustment development agreement with the Plaintiff and completed the development of the instant product at the Plaintiff’s request, and the Defendant entered into a contract to sell the instant product to a third party for profit-making or to provide it to a third party at a third party’s place of business (hereinafter “instant business”). After commencing the instant business, the instant contract was renewed on May 11, 2013. On July 26, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract to partially modify (Evidence B) the content of the instant contract (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. 1) The instant contract was terminated on May 10, 2015, because the re-agreement between the original Defendant was not reached. 2) Even after the termination of the instant contract, the Plaintiff continued to provide the Defendant with the instant product in the quantity of the goods indicated in the separate sheet without returning it to a third party.

C. On May 11, 2015, following the expiration date of the contract, the Defendant filed an application for arbitration with the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board (No. 1511-0216) seeking unjust enrichment in proportion to 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act (No. 1511-0216), with respect to KRW 278,203,60, total value of the above goods, from May 11, 2015 to the date of delivery of the above goods. 2) The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board cited part of the Defendant’s application for arbitration on November 2, 2016 (hereinafter “instant arbitral award”).

Order of Award

1. The respondent (the plaintiff in this case; hereinafter the same shall apply) is the defendant in this case.

arrow