logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2020.02.27 2018다228448
손해배상 등 청구의 소
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff A and the defendants.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed by both parties).

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”), the lower court determined that Plaintiff A did not constitute a tort against Plaintiff A, on the grounds as indicated in the fourth date for pleading of the first instance trial, on August 22, 2016, on the ground that: (a) reported royalties from the preparatory document as of August 22, 2016, which was stated in the fourth date for pleading of the first instance trial; and (b) the claim for damages arising from concealment was made clear that Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”)’s failure to settle accounts or failure to pay royalties.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the requirements for tort, or by omitting judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the Defendants asserted that the lower court omitted its judgment, even though the Defendants made a set-off objection against the Plaintiffs by making the claim for damages against the Plaintiffs as an automatic claim.

However, this cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal due to a new argument that is only the first time in the final appeal.

(B) On August 23, 2016, the Defendant’s assertion was not sought in a written statement submitted by the lower court, including two pages of the preparatory brief as of August 23, 2016.

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the Defendants asserted that the lower court omitted the judgment on the Defendants’ damages claim against the Plaintiffs following the illegal termination of the master agreement.

However, this part of the claim is based on the premise that the Defendants made a set-off defense with the right to claim damages against the Plaintiffs as an automatic claim, and as seen earlier, the Defendants’ assertion.

arrow