본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.20 2018나42186

전단배포대금

Text

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Around April 2016, the Plaintiff-in-charge (C) concluded an agreement with the Defendant (in-charge D) on April 2016, that the Plaintiff’s business purpose was the insertion of the leaflet in a daily newspaper, and that the Plaintiff distributed the leaflet by placing the Defendant’s health club in a daily newspaper, or attached the leaflet at the entrance of an apartment complex in the neighborhood, and the Defendant shall pay the price therefrom (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. Pursuant to the instant agreement, the Plaintiff carried out the business of distributing the former part of KRW 24,827,00 (including value-added tax) in total from April 21, 2016 to July 7, 2017 to neighboring apartment buildings.

C. The Defendant paid KRW 18,843,00 in total from April 20, 2016 to May 30, 2017, respectively, for the repayment of the instant contract price.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 5,984,000 (=24,827,000 - 18,843,000) due to the agreement of this case and delay damages therefrom, barring special circumstances.

B. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant completed payment of the price for the particulars confirmed by the order with the letter of expenditure, etc., and that the remaining part of the plaintiff's claim cannot be responded to the plaintiff's claim due to lack of objective evidence.

The following circumstances, i.e., ① did not prepare a contract under the instant agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but most of the content of the message (Evidence A 4) between the employee in charge and the Plaintiff’s account book (Evidence A 3) are consistent, and the existence of the instant agreement and the performance of the agreement can be sufficiently recognized based on the evidence above. ② The Defendant is fully aware of the existence of the instant agreement and the implementation thereof.