logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.27 2015가합4127
투자금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company specializing in the “here-type marketing,” which commercialized the video works of Han Lone Star and sells them overseas, and the Defendant operated an entertainment entertainment entertainment entertainment entertainment entertainment entertainment business, and a mutual company B (hereinafter “B”).

B. On January 30, 2012, with respect to the business of commercialization of Maspact products using the portrait rights to the Hansp Group “C” in Japan, the Plaintiff and B entered into a total sales license agreement with the Plaintiff, stating that the Plaintiff would procure necessary expenses, etc. and B would perform the business of obtaining approval for the use of the portrait rights of the relevant model and perform the business of manufacturing and supplying and managing the products.

C. On February 2, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20 million as advance payment, and KRW 3 million as loan on February 17, 2012.

On March 29, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement for marketing support (i.e., the agreement to pay KRW 100 million in return for the brand commercialization and marketing of D (hereinafter referred to as D) in Japan. On March 29, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) again promoted by B and B; (b) entered into an agreement for marketing support (i.e., the agreement to maximize D’s marketing effects by selecting the bags for the Japanese distribution business in Mar. 29, 2012 as a special premium; and (c) paid KRW 100 million in return on the same day B.

E. From April 2012 to August 2, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 130,640,000 to commercialize CMascact nine times.

F. However, around August 30, 2012, B sent to the Plaintiff a written statement to the effect that the Plaintiff would refund the funds invested until September 2012 and liquidate the contractual relationship, as the Plaintiff did not provide adequate consulting services.

G. On January 6, 2013, the Plaintiff and B confirmed the amount invested by the Plaintiff with respect to B, and the non-exclusive sales right of “E” owned and owned by B.

arrow