logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.11.25 2016나2029843
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: Paragraph 2 among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance; Paragraph 3 among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, Paragraph 2 is deleted; Paragraph 2 is as follows; Paragraph 3 is as follows; Paragraph 3 is as "performance"; Paragraph 3 is as "A, Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, and 12 (including each number)" is changed to "each entry in Evidence Nos. 3, 5, 7 and 12 (including each number)"; and Paragraph 6 is as "each entry in Evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 7 is as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance."

2. The changed part

2. Requests for restitution following the cancellation of the instant entrustment contract, etc.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, in accordance with the instant consignment contract, has a duty to establish and carry out marketing franchises for the members of Byung who purchased the equipment from the Plaintiff, provided that the Plaintiff paid only part of KRW 100,00,000 as advertising expenses paid in accordance with the instant consignment contract, and did not perform the obligation under the instant consignment contract. 2) After the conclusion of the instant consignment contract, the Plaintiff suggested that the Defendant concentrated the Defendant’s marketing for the additional members of Byung as the Plaintiff’s loss caused to the Plaintiff. The Defendant accepted the instant consignment, and requested the Plaintiff to demand advertising expenses for the equipment itself, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,000,000 as advertising expenses for the equipment itself, on June 5, 2014, the Defendant failed to perform the obligation to pay for the equipment itself, but did not perform the obligation to pay for the equipment itself.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s entrustment contract of this case and the entrustment contract of the above KRW 30,00,000 on the grounds of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant entrustment contract, etc.”).

(2) The sum of the amounts already paid shall be cancelled.

arrow