logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.11.18 2016나34018
사용료
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order for payment shall be revoked, and above.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a business operator providing Internet communications services, etc., and the defendant was a person who operated the "CPC" in Gwangju Northern-gu B.

B. On June 18, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a business Internet service agreement with ELPus PC with D who operated the said PC. On July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on the change of the user’s name to provide the said Internet service for three-year agreed period (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. On November 21, 2014, the Defendant submitted an application for termination of the instant use contract, and the instant use contract was terminated on November 24, 2014.

At the time of termination of the instant use contract, the Defendant’s unpaid usage fees are KRW 378,320 for October 2014, KRW 301,660 for November 2014, and KRW 5,360 for late payment additional charges for unpaid usage fees, KRW 685,340 for late payment, and KRW 3,405,970 for non-performance of the contractual obligation agreement for three years.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the above determination as to the unpaid usage fees, etc. in October and November 2014, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 301,660 won in October 2014 and the unpaid usage fees of 378,320 won in November 2014, plus 685,340 won in arrears, additional charges of 5,360 won in arrears, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% in each year as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from February 17, 2016 to November 18, 2016, the date following the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint in this case.

B. Whether the Defendant is liable to pay penalty for breach of contractual duty due to nonperformance of the three-year contract for compulsory use.

arrow