beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 100,302,100 as well as 5% per annum from September 19, 2014 to September 18, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in the manufacture and sale of clothes for women under the trade name of “D” in astronomical City.
B. On November 21, 2012, Defendant B filed an application for the trademark “FG” with the trade name “E” and the trademark “FG” with a view to engaging in wholesale and retail business after receiving clothes from the Plaintiff.
From around that time to August 2013, at Defendant B’s request, the Plaintiff manufactured “G” functional clothes, etc. bearing the trademark (hereinafter “instant goods”) and supplied them to Defendant B.
Defendant C is the wife of Defendant B.
C. When Defendant B placed an order to the Plaintiff at any time, the Plaintiff sent the instant goods and its trading specifications to Defendant B, and Defendant B sent the goods to the Plaintiff by facsimile by indicating the details of inspection in the said transaction specifications.
The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not prepare a written contract, such as a basic contract related to the continuous transaction of the instant goods.
【Fact-finding without a dispute over the ground for recognition, entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The question of who the party to the contract for the instant goods transaction is the party involved in the contract is the interpretation of the intent of the party.
In this case where no disposal document, such as a contract, is written between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, in order to determine who is the party to the instant goods delivery contract, the objective content of the document should be examined, focusing on the data prepared in the process of performing the said delivery contract, and the objective meaning that the parties agreed to indicate should be reasonably interpreted.
As seen earlier, Defendant B was registered as the representative of “E”, and the fact that Defendant B applied for trademark (G) attached to the instant goods is identical to that of “E”.