logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.08.31 2016가단18603
원고료 반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with F, a Chinese broadcasting company, on dispatching human resources to cooperate in the production of F’s artistic programs. According to the above contract on dispatching human resources, the period of production of the program shall be 90 days from January 10, 2016 to April 9, 2016, and may be changed according to the actual production completion date, and if it is difficult to agree on the content or method of production, it shall be based on the F’s opinion, and if it is not possible, the F is entitled to demand replacement of human resources or refund of expenses.

B. In order to produce the above arts program, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendants, who are broadcast writers at the end of the end of the period of the contract for three months (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Plaintiff paid Defendant B monthly KRW 17,406,00, Defendant C, and D for three months, monthly payment of KRW 9,670,00, and monthly payment of KRW 6,769,000 to Defendant E.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the Defendants the Plaintiff fees for January 2, 2016 and for the portion 2.

Defendant B, D, and E depart from China on January 9, 2016, and Defendant C entered Korea on January 23, 2016, and Defendant C improved a bridge and entered Korea on February 3, 2016. The remaining Defendants, after entering China on February 4, 2016, entered Korea on February 11, 2016, again on February 19, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion requested Defendant B, who served as the representative of the Defendants at F’s request, to replace Defendant D, but Defendant B rejected this request and agreed on the instant contract. Even if the instant contract was not agreed upon, the Defendants’ refusal to comply with the Defendants’ request was lawfully terminated, and thus, the Defendants’ claim out of February 2016.

arrow