(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2016.11.16 2015가합100754

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2016.11.16 2015가합100754

부당이득금

Text

1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 29,590,000 against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related thereto, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) from February 28, 2015 to May 21, 2015.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On or around April 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) supplied the Plaintiff with the software development agreement that the Defendant would receive KRW 45 million (value added tax) from the Plaintiff as its development costs; (b) around July 2013, the Defendant developed and supplied the software for the operation of the public flag and plant cultivation plant (hereinafter “public flag”); and (c) supplied the Plaintiff with the software development agreement that the Defendant would receive KRW 33 million (value added tax separate) from the Plaintiff as its development costs (hereinafter “each of the instant software”).

(2) The Plaintiff concluded each development contract of this case as the contract deposit for each development contract of this case (hereinafter “each development contract of this case”) and received a total of KRW 39 million from the Plaintiff as the contract deposit for each development contract of this case ( KRW 16.5 million as the contract deposit for the development contract of this case on March 29, 2013) on July 15, 2013.

B. Under each of the instant development agreements, the Defendant agreed to develop and supply the software within four months from the date of deposit of down payment (122 days from the date of deposit of down payment in the case of the software for mass-type operation) and within three months from July 1, 2013 (92 days from July 15, 2013 in the case of the software for the operation of the pipe-type equipment). However, if the Defendant fails to comply with the foregoing deadline, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff compensation for delay equivalent to 20/1,000 of the daily contract amount (hereinafter “instant compensation agreement”).

C. After that, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to add matters not included in the specifications of each of the software of this case agreed upon by the original Defendant, and the original Defendant extended the time limit for supply of each of the software of this case to June 10, 2014, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s additional needs.

If there is a request, it shall be required.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2019.06.21 2018가단231566

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2020.04.23 2019고단2712

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.27 2019가합518556

-서울남부지방법원 2019.01.24 2017가합109718

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.12 2016나81781