beta
Text
1. Of the monetary payment in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this court to accept the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases of cutting, adding, or deleting as follows, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 3rd part of the judgment of the court of first instance has changed the 15th part of the 15th part into the 3rd part of the Busan Jin-gu.
Part 9 of the decision of the first instance shall be added to the following:
Around July 17, 2018, the Defendant changed the trade name above “A” to Q Q (No. 52-1, 2). Of the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant deleted 10, 11.
Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part of the “request for prohibition of mutual use” (from 8th to 17th page) shall be deleted.
Part 16 of the Decision of the first instance shall be added to the following:
The Defendant brought a lawsuit claiming damages against the Defendant by inducing H to enter into the instant second supply contract with the Defendant with the intent to interfere with the Defendant’s business, while the Defendant entered into the instant first supply contract with H on July 18, 2018, the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court 2017Kadan5212944) stated that the Defendant suffered damages by entering into the instant second supply contract with H on a discount of KRW 25,94,760, compared to the contract amount with H on the purpose of interfering with the Defendant’s business, but the said court (Seoul Central District Court 2017Da5212944) declared the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim on July 18, 2018 (Evidence No. 30).
B. As seen in Section 1-C, D et al. entered into a contract with the O to supply 9,227,90 won in total from September 18, 2015 to October 13, 2016, and supplied the product. 6,386,90 won out of the price of the product was paid by O.
According to the statements in Gap evidence 22-1 and 2, theO is L and April 28, 2017.