logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.10.17 2018가단51153
계약금반환 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 Defendant, around November 2015, is a Chinese product import agent who entered into a domestic monopoly partnership agreement with C, a Chinese largest non-investment (B2B) business entity, a domestic e-commerce business entity.

B. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “D”) received brochures from the Defendant, containing the following contents in contact with the Defendant:

11. Compared to the difference between Company C and other companies engaged in importing agency in China in Korea, a transaction through most of the distributors who are 50 million Chinese products through a direct trade system of 20 million Chinese importing agents in China with most of the 50 million Chinese products, which is 3-6-stage distribution structure and most of the 50 million Chinese products, using an online Sck trial system in which the supply is increased as a settlement method, and the risk of receiving the price of the goods first from the Chinese seller is a dangerous structure in which many importers are actually receiving the price of the goods, and there is a limit of the actual product at least 50 million products available for all the products except for narcotics or weapons, so a system established in the product inspection period of 37-7 business days in order to provide information about the demand of goods, such as the product size and unit price among the products in order to rapidly operate the business during the period prior to the rapid operation of the distribution system in which many importers are actually receiving the price of the goods.

13. China's purchase and settlement process 3- The types of supplies for which import is requested can be provided with at least 10-50 various information so that the importer can choose various types of options.

C. On November 28, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a regional total sales contract (a metropolitan agency) with the following (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to the Defendant and the import agency (hereinafter “A”) (hereinafter “instant contract”).

§ 2.

arrow