(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.12.04 2014가단27725

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.12.04 2014가단27725

영업수수료

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion was conducted so that the defendant's products, such as the PED supervisor, can be supplied to the KONEX (hereinafter "KON") and entered into a supply contract with the plaintiff and the defendant as joint suppliers. Since the defendant did not pay KRW 27,024,70,00 which the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff even after receiving the price of goods from KON, the defendant is obligated to pay the above business fees to the plaintiff.

2. In full view of the Plaintiff’s written evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that the supply contract was concluded between KON on December 12, 2013 and the Plaintiff and the Defendant for 280 million won of products, such as LED Official, and that the Defendant supplied the goods to KON and received the full payment of the price for the goods can be acknowledged.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 27,024,70 as a sales fee under the above supply contract from the Defendant, and as a whole, B, who uses the Plaintiff’s title as the head of the Plaintiff’s headquarters, as a franchise in full view of the entries and the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 7 (including partial numbers), has engaged in business activities so that the Defendant may supply the products to KON, and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 27,024,70 to B with the sales fee for the above business activities, and each fact that the Defendant paid the full amount of the sales fee to B on December 17, 2013 and January 6, 2014 can be recognized. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff, not the Plaintiff, who has the business fee claims against the Defendant.

As long as the joint supply contract was concluded in the name of the plaintiff, the plaintiff asserts that the agreement between the defendant and B extends to the plaintiff. However, according to the plaintiff's argument, the plaintiff's act as a franchise and the position as the head of the plaintiff's business headquarters is used.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.02.17 2015가단232190

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.30 2016가단5006845

-대구지방법원 2017.09.20 2017나2241

-인천지방법원 2018.10.04 2017가단257196

-춘천지방법원 2020.02.12 2018가단58345