logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.06.16 2016나30719
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

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a broadband operator established for the purpose of selling and managing credit card terminals, and the Defendant is a person who runs a business with the trade name “B” in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On May 7, 2012, the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff for the trading of a POS terminal, a lease contract with the Plaintiff, and concluded a contract for the use of the Plaintiff’s credit card inquiry service (VI) on May 8, 2015, when the contract period with the Plaintiff expires, and concluded a contract for the use of the Plaintiff’s credit card inquiry service again with the Plaintiff.

C. The main contents of the Plaintiff’s service terms and conditions applicable to the instant contract (hereinafter “instant terms and conditions”) are as follows.

Article 3 (Conditions and Obligations for Using Services)

B. The Defendant cannot conclude a service contract with a third party, which is similar to this contract within the period of a mandatory agreement.

Article 6 (Term of Contract)

(b)the duration of the mandatory services shall be 60 months from the date of the contract;

Article 8 (Standards for Compensation for Damages) Where the Defendant violates the provisions of Articles 3 and 6;

A. The Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff twice the monthly payment for the cost of the leased equipment (such as the terminal signature tag, etc.) subsidized to the Plaintiff for the dC usage fee (the exempted month).

B. In addition to paragraph (a), the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for the amount of monthly average number of days x 110 won x the remaining agreed month).

On June 9, 2015, the Defendant arbitrarily removed the Plaintiff’s device and replaced it to the other company’s device. On June 16, 2015, the Plaintiff terminated the above contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s breach of contract and sent to the Defendant a certificate of contents seeking the payment of penalty.

[Ground of recognition] The written evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and 5, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion violated the agreement to use the credit card transaction approval service with the device provided by the Plaintiff for a period of 36 months, and thus, pursuant to Article 8 of the said agreement.

arrow