(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.29 2018가합535127

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.29 2018가합535127

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 56,622,517 as well as 5% per annum from June 5, 2018 to May 29, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that provides online video lectures in preparation for the public official examination. The Defendant entered into an exclusive instructor contract with the Plaintiff and took an English subject at the website operated by the Plaintiff.

B. On April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an exclusive instructor contract (hereinafter “instant exclusive contract”) with the Defendant by setting the contract deposit of KRW 50 million and the period from April 28, 2017 to June 30, 202. The main contents are as follows.

On October 1, 2013, the A and B (hereinafter referred to as "A") shall provide lecture services to A as an exclusive instructor of A and enter into a lecturer contract (hereinafter referred to as "this contract") as follows:

Article 3(Duties)(2) The obligations of Section B under this Agreement shall be as follows:

1.B shall ensure that Party A complies with the schedule and plan for the production of lecture services presented by Party A and that Party B may provide Party B with lectures without interruptions.

2. Eul shall actively cooperate in the improvement of the sales and level of lectures and in the development of new lectures services.

3. B shall faithfully perform activities that are contrary to the status of an instructor, such as responding to online inquiries related to learning, counseling with students, etc. on the A-site.

4. Eul may not raise an objection to the advertisement, planning, programming, or placement provided by Gap for the lecture services of Eul and Eul on its website.

Article 5 (Production) (1) The lecture service under this Agreement shall be made by the following methods, and detailed schedules shall proceed under a separate agreement between A and B:

1. Pidio shooting: Taking a classic picture of B from Switzerlands designated by A;

2. The photographing of the classical driving school: The classical photographing of the classical driving school designated by A; (2) The classical photographing of B at the office of a classical driving school designated by A; and (3) the time schedule and plan for the production of the classical service.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.25 2016가합520442

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.16 2017가합511254

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.28 2020가합540030

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.29 2017가합511261

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.16 2016가합507302