logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2016.05.12 2015가단20676
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendants, which was conducted by the Defendant Busan Information Industry Promotion Agency (hereinafter “Defendant Promotion Agency”), disclosed the existing supply by item, in violation of the confidentiality clause of a negotiated contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in 2013, at the purchase of toilet convenience goods (hereinafter “2014 bidding”). B. The Defendants designed the Defendant’s unlawful bid by omitting annual consumption for the purpose of excluding the Plaintiff from the purchase of toilet convenience goods in 2015 (hereinafter “tender 2015”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff was not awarded a bid in 2015.

C. Despite the Plaintiff’s ownership, the Plaintiff renounced its ownership upon the Defendant’s strong demand. D.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages of KRW 13,80,00 due to the tender in 2014, KRW 7,600,000 due to the tender in 2015, and KRW 3,292,00 due to the installation, maintenance, and repair of a dice, and KRW 3,292,00,000, in total, KRW 27,692,00.

2. Determination

A. In light of the content of the contract for the supply of toilet expendable goods between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Promotion Agency in 2013 (in particular the confidentiality clause of Article 13 and the content of the public announcement of tender in 2014, the Defendant Promotion Agency’s tender in 2014 violated the above supply contract (in particular the confidentiality clause of Article 13) (Article 13).

It is difficult to see that the plaintiff suffered business loss or otherwise there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

B. The tender in 2015 was designed to exclude the Plaintiff solely with the description of the evidence No. 2, No. 2015.

In this case, it is difficult to see that it is an illegal bid to the extent that it is impossible to make a normal tender, and it is difficult to view it as an annual consumption.

arrow