beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is a company with the purpose of performing production and planning business, and the defendant is a company with the purpose of arranging domestic and overseas parcel transportation business.
B. (1) On December 2014, Company B (hereinafter “B”) decided to hold “D” of “D” (hereinafter “instant primary performance”) in Japan around the end of December, 2014 as a company for performance planning and production activities, and decided to bring the equipment to be used in the said performance into Japan in Korea, and requested the Defendant to act on behalf of the Defendant for the transportation brokerage and the transportation contract for the said equipment and MD (MD) goods outside the country and their carriage in Japan.
(2) The Defendant, by January 1, 2015, failed to receive the remainder of KRW 100,250,000, excluding the remainder of KRW 66,000, which was paid on December 12, 2014 as advance payment, from B, after completing the carriage of the performance equipment in the Republic of Korea and in the Republic of Korea for the first public performance of the instant case from January 2, 2015.
C. (1) Meanwhile, Japan, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) invited Japan to hold a “F performance” (hereinafter “instant secondary performance”) from May 8, 2015 to June 10, 2015, and entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on March 30, 2015 with the content of entrusting the Plaintiff with domestic affairs, such as the transportation of equipment necessary for the production and performance.
(2) On April 29, 2015, E decided that the equipment to be used in the instant second performance will also be brought into Korea to Japan, and entered into a contract for the lease of the instant performance equipment necessary for the instant second performance from a Korean performance equipment leasing company. The Plaintiff entrusted the transportation of the instant performance equipment to Japan around that time, and the Plaintiff again completed the performance in Japan, respectively.