logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.29 2018나33670
위약벌 청구의 소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the cause of the claim are as stated in Paragraph 1. of the judgment of the first instance, if the court excludes any dismissal or addition below.

1.(a)

(2)The 1st sentence “150,000,000” shall be corrected to “350,000,000”.

Under paragraph 4 of section 3, the term "n.e., penalty pursuant to Section 4 to Section 5 of this section shall not affect this contract and the transferor shall be liable for damages under this contract separately."

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant's gist of defense was delayed opening of the motion picture of this case under the plaintiff's understanding. As the motion picture of this case was put up against the Chinese government, such as Han Order, etc. due to the issue of routing up to the actual opening of the motion picture of this case, the situation of force majeure, such as securing the screen screen of the motion picture of this case, which resulted in a difficult circulation in China. Accordingly, the defendant could not achieve the share prescribed in the contract of this case. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have any reason attributable to the defendant, such as intentional negligence, etc., as to the failure to achieve the share of this case, the defendant is not obliged to pay penalty for breach of contract of this case

B. (1) Around October 2015, Defendant Representative E sent an e-mail to the Plaintiff’s side to the effect that the date of distributing the instant film would be around January 2016. Accordingly, Defendant Representative E sent a reply, but did not raise any objection on the date of distributing, etc.

(2) On December 21, 2015, E sent e-mail to the Plaintiff’s side of the instant film to the effect that he/she mentioned around March 4, 2016 on the date of distributing the instant film, and even thereafter, he/she did not raise any objection on the date of distributing, etc.

(3) E is a medium country due to the placement of private houses around August 3, 2016.

arrow