logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.05.12 2015가단205233
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 2, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant and the U.S. State B hotel (hereinafter “instant hotel”) on March 7, 2015 (hereinafter “instant contract”) that assumes responsibility for the local arrival, public relations, opinion, and performance of the members of the said performance (hereinafter “instant contract”). From March 19, 2015, from March 7, 2015, the Plaintiff organized by the Plaintiff and provided the Defendant with a contribution fee, air fee, and the local means of transportation, and accommodation for 20 minutes public performance by E (hereinafter “instant performance”).

B. On January 7, 2015, A water C was indicted as an act causing disturbance of alcohol in the U.S. sandbox air flag (hereinafter “instant act”), and the Incheon District Court sentenced C of a fine of KRW 4 million on June 11, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. After entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) produced TV commercials to publicize performances on January 7, 2015; and (b) from January 8, 2015 to the time the advertisement was aired; and (c) the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages of USD 119,139 ($ 201,40,00 that may be obtained if the instant performance was carried out; and (d) the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages of USD 119,139 ($ 82,261 that would be spent for the instant performance) by negligence that caused C to perform the contractual obligation under the instant contract by failing to perform the contractual obligation to cause social controversy as seen above, while failing to perform the contractual obligation to cause the performance in question.

3. We examine the judgment of Gap, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 only, and Eul's act occurred at the national flag of the Republic of Korea prior to the second of the performance of this case in California and California.

arrow