logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.05.10 2017나2032976
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part is revoked.

Reasons

1. Grounds for the court's explanation on this part of the premise facts are stated by the court of the first instance.

1. Since basic facts are the same as the entry of facts, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the claim for damages due to the termination of the first service contract

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff concluded the first service contract with the Defendant to receive KRW 4,50 million at the cost of advertising campaign with the Defendant, and concluded the first service contract with the effect that 50,000 won should be additionally paid at the expense of special support, and refused to pay the first service contract by the Defendant unfairly while conducting advertising campaign. The Plaintiff sought against the Defendant the payment of the remainder of KRW 129,395,50,00, excluding the remainder of KRW 370,604,50,000, excluding the remainder of KRW 370,604,50,000, from the sum of the advertising promotion expenses and special support expenses as damages equivalent to the performance profits arising from nonperformance or tort caused by the Defendant’s unfair refusal of payment. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant concluded the first service contract without the Defendant’s consent, and then the Plaintiff failed to achieve the sales target ratio under Article 6 of the above contract, and the Plaintiff did not have any separate obligation to pay the above damages claim to the Nonparty by the termination of the contract without approval.

Furthermore, since the Plaintiff transferred all of the claims for advertising campaign expenses under the first service contract to the non-party company, there is no damage claim asserted by the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1 is based on the premise that only a part of the claims related to advertising advertising expenses was transferred to the non-party company among the claims related to advertising expenses in the first service contract against the defendant.

arrow