logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.12.19 2016가단263175
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around November 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an agency contract with the Defendant with the content that the Plaintiff will entrust the Defendant with the business of selling mobile phones and purchasing services, and receive fees from the Defendant, but if it is confirmed that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for payment of fees, the Plaintiff would return the amount to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agency contract”).

B. In relation to the instant agency contract, the Plaintiff concluded a performance guarantee insurance contract with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. with the same content as the attached Form.

C. On August 9, 2016, the Defendant filed a claim for the payment of KRW 7,045,000 on the ground of the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation against Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (the Plaintiff’s unpaid currency and refund of fees on the ground of short-term termination).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion sold the mobile phone supplied by the Defendant under the instant agency contract without any problem to the customers. The Defendant, without correct grounds, claims the return of KRW 7,045,00,000 to the customers who joined the Plaintiff, claiming for the return of the fee of KRW 7,045,00 if they used the mobile phone short of the period of contract for use of the mobile phone. The Plaintiff did not violate the obligation under the instant agency contract, and thus, did not have any obligation under the instant agency contract, and there is no benefit of confirmation as long as the Defendant is disputing.

I would like to say.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), the Defendant’s sales of mobile phone monthly from November 2014 to March 2015 under the instant agency contract.

arrow