logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.09.24 2019나210377
손해배상(기)
Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed in entirety.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a brokerage agency in charge of L, M, and N’s Internet subscription business and management business, and the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with O, an individual operating store, andO, with O, to pay fees toO when it solicits three customers who will use communications services.

However, while soliciting three Internet goods, O, an individual business entity, offered that the Defendants would pay additional cash copies to the Defendants, and pay the penalty for the termination of the existing Internet goods, and that the Plaintiff did not have a separate oral agreement when the call call was called from the Plaintiff. The Defendants accepted the request.

Accordingly, the Defendants received piracy call from the Plaintiff, and responded to the purport that there was no separate oral agreement with theO, and subsequently, did not take any measures that O made an oral promise, the Defendants terminated the said contract within six months from the date of entry. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was subject to a redemption measure against cash and commission paid to the Defendants from the 3rd company.

In accordance with these factual relations, the Defendants conspired or aided and abetted the O’s fraudulent act. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the claim and damages for delay, which is the amount equivalent to cash and fees recovered by the Plaintiff as compensation for damages caused by the tort.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants, as to whether the Defendants conspiredd or aided to commit the O’s fraud, received a proposal from O to pay additional cash proceeds in lieu of penalty for the termination of an existing Internet product. Nevertheless, the Defendants responded to the purport that there was no instruction from the business store to receive information or to pay in lieu of penalty for breach of contract in the naval call, which was caused by the Plaintiff.

arrow