beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts C (hereinafter “D”) is a selling company of the automobile’s tubes established by the Defendant on November 4, 2008 in the U.S. Liberari-ju.
On December 15, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a “blateral Agreement” contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with D to establish D branch offices in Korea, and paid USD 100,000 in total as royalties.
According to the instant contract, the term of validity is from December 15, 2010 to December 15, 2013 (Article 6); D provides the Plaintiff with sales rights, accurate information, trademark rights, etc. of all the brands and products he/she owns in return for the payment of royalties from the Plaintiff (Articles 1 and 2); and if the Plaintiff fails to implement this, he/she shall return royalties to the Plaintiff (Articles 5(2) and 5(4)).
D is dissolved on March 7, 2012 and completed the report on the closure of business on March 7, 2012 without fulfilling the obligations stipulated in the instant contract.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment: (a) as D was unable to perform the contract of this case due to its closure, D is obligated to return royalties to the plaintiff as stipulated in the contract of this case; (b) as D is merely an individual company of the defendant, D is liable for the return of royalties in accordance with the legal principles of abuse of legal personality; and (b) the defendant, as D did not cooperate with D in performing its obligations under the contract of this case, even if it did not actively interfere with D's performance, thereby causing damage to the plaintiff from receiving royalties even if it paid royalties, so the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the royalties in accordance with Article 750 of the Civil Act.
However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is merely a defendant's private enterprise behind the Plaintiff's corporate personality to the extent that it is held liable to the Defendant for the abuse of corporate personality.
However, the defendant has committed a tort with respect to D's failure to pay damages directly to the plaintiff.