logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.05.22 2019나2016336
정산금청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the judgment that the court shall describe this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the modification to “by September 30, 2015,” “by September 30, 2016,” which read “by September 30, 2016,” as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant have reflected the total amount of royalties paid by the Plaintiff to H in calculating the cost of each of the instant agreements pursuant to Articles 17(2) and 22 of the Cost Accounting Rules and Article 20-2(1)2 of the Cost Accounting Rules when each of the instant agreements is concluded.

However, for the administrative convenience of the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that the amount of royalties incurred from the change in quantity shall be determined as the final item of the royalties and that the difference in royalties that occurred from the change in quantity shall be paid to the plaintiff in full by the defendant after reflecting the subsequent contract carried forward. After about five years, the defendant paid the unpaid royalties incurred from the previous contract to the plaintiff as the royalties for the subsequent contract

Therefore, there is an express or implied agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to settle the unpaid royalties due to the reduction of volume based on the subsequent contract. In violation of this, the Defendant refused to enter into a subsequent contract in 2015 for the settlement of the unpaid royalties.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the unpaid royalties due to the nonperformance of obligation.

(b) If both parties to the contract are in error of a common motive due to a complementary interpretation, the terms of the contract by a complementary interpretation.

arrow