logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.10.11 2017나6603
광고대금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the branch numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant concluded an advertising contract with the plaintiff and made an advertisement from the time of 2016 to the "supply of information on the Corporation" issued by the plaintiff, and the fact that the advertising price that the defendant did not pay to the plaintiff is a total of 6,750,000 won until November 13, 2015. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the advertising price that is not paid to the plaintiff and delay damages.

2. Defenses of extinctive prescription;

A. The Defendant’s defense is a defense that all of the advertising claims asserted by the Plaintiff occurred before 2011, and the three-year extinctive prescription period has expired, and all of them have already expired.

However, in light of the statement in Gap evidence No. 3, since it can be known that the plaintiff's claim for advertising price occurred from November 13, 2015 after the date of concluding the contract, the full amount is not accrued before 2011 as alleged by the defendant, and there is no circumstance to recognize that the above claim is a claim to which the short-term extinctive prescription of three years applies, so the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription cannot be accepted as it is.

However, in full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s advertising price claim appears to be subject to the five-year extinctive prescription. As such, the Defendant’s assertion that the three-year short-term extinctive prescription has taken place for a longer period of five years (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da35516, Nov. 10, 2006). Considering such circumstance, the Plaintiff’s claim appears to have arisen five years prior to February 7, 2017, which is the date for filing the instant lawsuit (the amount arising until October 24, 2011, out of the “C contract and deposit status” as provided for in subparagraph 3, the said claim shall be deemed to have expired for five-year extinctive prescription, barring special circumstances.

arrow