(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.11.29 2013가합978

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.11.29 2013가합978

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 3, 2011, the Defendant entered into an advertising agency contract (hereinafter “instant advertising agency contract”) with the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant’s brand-related to the payment system held by the Plaintiff, engaged in advertising agency business, such as advertising production; and (b) concluded the instant advertising agency contract (hereinafter “instant advertising agency contract”); and (c) the main contents of the said contract are as follows.

Article 2 (Purpose) The scope of advertising business to be conducted by the defendant for the plaintiff shall be as follows:

1. Planning an advertising campaign;

2. Production of advertisements;

3. All follow-up works including the compilation of advertisements;

4. Formulation of plans for annual and monthly advertisements.

7. Selection of media and execution of advertisements;

8. Other affairs requested by the Plaintiff in connection with the advertisement.

1. In principle, advertising execution and production costs to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in relation to this contract shall be charged monthly.

Provided, That the claims and terms of payment for the advertising business agreed separately by the plaintiff and the defendant shall be governed by the separate agreement.

2. The defendant shall claim advertising execution and production costs to the plaintiff as of the end of the month of execution, and the plaintiff shall pay the equivalent amount to the defendant in cash by the 25th of the following month.

B. On April 201, 201, the Defendant carried out the advertisement production of “Aapay” under the said contract, and thereafter, filed a claim with the Plaintiff for the service cost of KRW 175,670,293 (including value-added tax) in total via the issuance of electronic tax invoices at least five times.

Meanwhile, the Defendant received KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff as advertising production costs, in total, KRW 50,000,000, and KRW 20,000 on July 15, 2011.

C. After October 201, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking service charges of KRW 125,670,293, and damages for delay due to the payment order issued by this Court (hereinafter “instant payment order”) around October 27, 2011 and the payment order with the same content as the purport of the application.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.04 2018가단5002731

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.21 2016가합546840

-서울동부지방법원 2020.04.23 2018가합113049

-서울동부지방법원 2016.06.03 2016가단100325

-서울서부지방법원 2018.11.08 2017가합36758