logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.12.24 2015나2017676
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The status of the party is a company whose objective is painting construction business, unclaimed construction business, etc., and incidental business related thereto. The defendant is a company whose purpose is to manufacture and sell anti-friendly paints, synthetic resin, folding agents, and paint-related business.

B. The conclusion of the contract on the re-building construction of the apartment of this case 1) The apartment complex 4 and 5 apartment complex located in the 34-ro, Namyang-si, Namyang-si, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”).

) The council of occupants' representatives (hereinafter referred to as the "council of occupants' representatives of this case").

(2) Around August 2013, the Plaintiff, who participated in the bid, was determined as a successful bidder on September 2, 2013. Around August 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff requested that the Plaintiff, who had participated in the bid, submit a design proposal regarding the painting work.

On September 16, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the council of occupants' representatives regarding the above re- viable works.

C. Defendant’s royalty supply 1) The council of occupants’ representatives of the instant case set the “five-dimensional color” design proposed by the Defendant as the final design, and the Plaintiff agreed to be supplied with paint and other paint products from the Defendant in order to perform painting construction work as proposed by the Defendant. 2) As such, the Plaintiff was supplied with paint, etc. from October 19, 2013 to October 24, 2013. On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff raised a problem that some of them (HA801) products would occur when using the product, and the Defendant collected the relevant product and confirmed whether there was any abnormal product.

3. On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff requested return of unused paint products, etc. to the Defendant on the grounds that there is a problem, such as the occurrence of dust, etc. on the paint products newly supplied by the Defendant to the Defendant. The instant council of occupants’ representatives is the Plaintiff on November 1, 2013.

arrow