logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.08.30 2018가합200352
약정금
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Defendant is a juristic person operating telecommunications business, etc., and the Plaintiff is a juristic person operating a mail order wholesale sales business as the Defendant’s agent. B, the Plaintiff’s representative, is a person who retired from the Defendant around January 2012 while serving as the Defendant’s C Branch. B, following an internal evaluation by the Defendant’s internal deliberation committee, refers to an agent established by a person who was an employee of the Defendant of Sfin-fin-ray agency after withdrawal from the Defendant.

The defendant has supported the store's premium, deposit, monthly rent, interior, personnel expenses, etc. to the "sfin-fin-fin-fin-fin-g agency."

After obtaining the establishment approval, the Plaintiff established the Plaintiff and started its business as the Defendant’s agency from February 1, 2012.

B. On July 12, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into the instant first and second agreements (i.e., the conclusion of the instant agreement) with a view to prescribing various matters concerning support for the Sfin-ray agents (hereinafter “the first agreement”).

(2) In conclusion, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on the same day, agreed that the Defendant’s office located on the first floor of the Daegu-gu D Building (hereinafter “instant office”) is an office located on the first floor of the Daegu-gu D Building (hereinafter “instant office”).

(2) On February 1, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a new agreement on the provision of wholesale fin-fin-fin-fin-fin-fin-fin-fin-fin-fin-fin-fin-fin-fin-fin-fin-f3 (hereinafter “the second agreement”), which included the change of the monthly amount of wholesale sales agreement to 1,100 items from 350 items per month (the first agreement of this case), which is the basis for subsidization of personnel expenses, from which the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement on support of the previous office (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Since then, the plaintiff.

arrow