beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 110,101,846 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 6% per annum from March 1, 2010 to June 16, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Fact that there is no dispute over basic facts [based for recognition], each entry into Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings;
A. On January 13, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for business cooperation (hereinafter “instant contract”) with El branch Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ON21”) on the following grounds: (a) on September 25, 2006, the Plaintiff: (b) on the part of the Plaintiff: (c) on the part of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for business cooperation (hereinafter “instant contract”); (d) on the part of the Plaintiff: (c) on the part of the Plaintiff: (d) on the part of the Plaintiff: (d) on the part of the Plaintiff: (e) on the part of the Plaintiff: (e) on the provision of domestic and overseas Internet lines for telecommunication service; (e) on the part of the Plaintiff; (e) on the part of the Plaintiff; (e) on the part of the Plaintiff, on the part of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff
The main contents of the above contract relating to this case are as follows, and the Plaintiff and the Patent Credit Union agreed to pay the settlement fee for the service of the corresponding month pursuant to Article 12(3) of the contract of this case by the end of the following month.
Section 4(1) The term of validity of this contract shall be two years from the date of conclusion of the contract, and shall be automatically extended on a yearly basis without any separate written notice by six months prior to the expiration of the contract; hereinafter the same shall apply) the settlement of charges under Article 12(3) of the Patent Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Settlement of Charges") shall be paid by a company using On-the-Counter 21 services of the Telecom. The service fees for the Telecom shall be paid to the Plaintiff in accordance with the terms of payment of the Telecom for the service fees received.
B. The instant contract was automatically extended pursuant to Article 4(1) and terminated as of December 31, 2009, and the Defendant merged the compact around January 2010.
2. According to the Eul evidence No. 10 as to the cause of the claim, the settlement fee under the contract of this case for the service of November and December 2009 can be acknowledged as the fact that the settlement fee of this case was 54,590,907 won and 55,510,939, respectively.