(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.11.22 2018나36896

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.11.22 2018나36896

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 23, 2013, the Plaintiff, who engages in the direct processing and export business, etc. of fibers under the trade name of “C,” entered into a development agreement with the Defendant, which had engaged in software development business under the trade name of “D” (hereinafter “the first agreement”), and paid one million won down payment to the Defendant on the same day.

Section 1 (Purpose) The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for all matters resulting from the modification or addition of a program for the purpose of the modification or addition of a program for the purpose of the program developed by D (hereinafter referred to as “A”) on the basis of the program developed by D (hereinafter referred to as “B”).

1. The amount of program development shall be 3,500,000 (VAT separate, cash).

Down Payment: After completion of the Won 1,000,000 (VAT separate, cash): Won 1,000,000 (VAT separate, cash): After completion of the development of the program, it shall be paid in the way of Won 1,50,000 (VAT separate, cash).

4. The period of development shall be three months from the payment date of down payment and may be extended if necessary;

Article 5 (Method of Providing Services)

3. “A” must be determined not later than four weeks after receipt of the input/power design, and the period of production in the event of delay shall be automatically extended.

4. The fixed period of the entry/power design proposal of “A” must not exceed one month.

B. The Defendant failed to develop the software until April 23, 2013, which is three months from the date of the deposit of down payment, which is the development period stipulated in the first contract, and the Defendant, on July 8, 2013, demanded the Plaintiff to pay additional development costs by sending to the Plaintiff an e-mail with the content that “this pro rata is likely to be successful by having the e-mail in the statistical output (Buyer, inventory, and original group) and then having the e-mail with the content that “It is deemed that it is highly likely to be successful in making the next pro rata automation”.

C. The Plaintiff agreed on the additional development cost with the Defendant as KRW 1 million.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원마산지원 2016.11.16 2015가합100754

-서울남부지방법원 2014.05.09 2013가합1816

-서울고등법원 2015.01.29 2014나2016409

-서울고등법원 2017.11.14 2017나2007758

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.21 2014가합559811