(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.06.29 2015가합2645

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) 서울서부지방법원 2016.06.29 2015가합2645

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 411,00,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this, from June 24, 2015 to June 29, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, including the status of the parties, is the author who mainly writes the film scenario, and the Defendant is the employee of the daily planning company.

C, the husband of the Defendant, is the vice president of D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) and the representative director of E (the trade name before July 20, 201 is F. and hereinafter referred to as “E”) who is engaged in the rare manufacturing business.

B. On September 12, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract for writing a copy of 16 minutes (70 minutes a time) between E and E on September 12, 2008, and until March 15, 2013, the main copy of the 4th part of the 4th part (including “A” and “G” even after the 4th part of the 4th part following the 4th part of the 4th part, and only the correction was made.

provision of this section;

4. From November, 11 to 16 times the substitute material amounting to KRW 12 million (i.e., KRW 7., KRW 7.5 million per time x 16 times), the progress cost of KRW 2.4 million, advance payment of KRW 3 million, etc. received KRW 17.4 million.

2) On July 12, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant and E to transfer the rights and obligations under the said contract to the Defendant, and entered into a new Diplomatic Work Contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

The main contents of the agreement and the new service agreement are as follows. ① The terms of the agreement and the new service agreement provided by the Plaintiff are as follows: ① Part 80 times in total and 4 in 20 times in 80 and 30 times in 20 times in 1. ② The content and title of the work and the planning direction shall be determined through mutual consultation between the Defendant and the Plaintiff. ③ The Plaintiff actively cooperates with the Defendant’s request, such as PPL, extension, and the production of services outside a short time in providing the service.

② The Plaintiff is a broadcasting business operator other than the Defendant during the contract period.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.04.14 2016나2042754

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.17 2018가합550492

-서울고등법원 2020.04.24 2019나2034303

-서울남부지방법원 2018.05.03 2017고합617

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.12 2017가합557489