2013dada 5005216 Unlawful gains

Park ○

Southyang Oil Company

Representative Director Kim*

Manager Lee Young-young

September 4, 2013

October 2, 2013

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20,858,852 won with 5% interest per annum from August 1, 2012 to January 30, 2013, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

A. On September 1, 201, the Defendant is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of dairy products. On September 1, 201, the Plaintiff entered into an agency contract with the Defendant to be supplied with products by the Defendant and sell them to the general retail store in the Gam-si area (hereinafter “instant agency contract”).

B. According to the instant agency contract, the Plaintiff is obliged to keep KRW 5,00,000 as cash deposit in order to lend air conditioners, transportation equipment, etc. from the Defendant, and to manage the equipment when operating the agency.

C. From July 11, 2012 to July 30, 2012, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with products worth KRW 12,858,852 higher than KRW 6,484,209, and KRW 19,343,061, which was ordered by the Plaintiff, and suffered damages that the Plaintiff would not sell the products that were supplied in excess, and most of them would have to be discarded.

D. On July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred the instant agency to a third party, and handed over the lending equipment. During the Plaintiff’s agency operation period, the Defendant claimed KRW 3,000,000 exceeding the actual price of the goods and received the payment.

2. Determination;

A. According to the above facts, inasmuch as the instant agency contract was terminated, the Defendant is obligated to refund the amount of cash deposit of KRW 5,00,000 and the amount of goods in excess of KRW 3,00,000 to the Plaintiff. (2) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to refund the cash deposit only after verifying the quantity of the leased equipment to his successor. In light of the overall purport of the arguments in the above evidence, the Defendant is obliged to install a cooling system, transportation equipment, etc. at the local retail store for the sale of the product and manage it in the form of lending to the agent. The Defendant received cash from the agent as the name of the deposit for the leased equipment at the time of the conclusion of the agency contract. Since the leased equipment is not directly used by the agent, but is kept for the goods at retail stores, etc., the Defendant is not obligated to transfer the leased equipment directly to the agent after the former agent, but to transfer the equipment to the Plaintiff in the form of a comprehensive transfer of the leased equipment to the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is reasonable to acknowledge that the Defendant’s transfer the equipment to the Plaintiff.

B. (1) The Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the so-called “the so-called “inbound” method in which the product amounting to KRW 12,858,852 exceeds the actual order during July 2012, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff without disposing of it, and thus, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff. (2) The Defendant asserts that the amount of excess supplied does not reach the above amount. However, the Defendant asserts that the basic data for calculating the amount of damages is concentrated on the Defendant company. As such, the Defendant did not only pay the formal burden of proof, but also the court to alleviate the inequality of evidence such as ordering the submission of documents, etc.

The plaintiff's duty to faithfully respond to its measures is that this court ordered the defendant to submit the contents of the order management program "Pamp 21" that can identify the accurate order quantity and excessive order quantity of the agency owner at the plaintiff's request, but it is not submitted on the ground that the above program was discontinued. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the amount of damages of the plaintiff's assertion is proved.

C. Sub-decision

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 20,858,852 won ( – - 5,00,000 won + 3,000,000 won + 12,858,852 won) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from August 1, 2012 to January 30, 2013, which is the day following the termination of the agency contract of this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is accepted.

Judges Laosia