logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.09.12 2017나2024531
손해배상 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act citing the judgment of the court of first instance

However, some of the arguments made by the plaintiff in this court shall be further examined as follows.

[Supplementary part] The 7th five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance "exclusive contract" shall be applied to "exclusive contract".

3 below the judgment of the court of first instance: (a) the plaintiff on May 2, 2013, 201; (b) the defendant, "the plaintiff on May 2, 2013," and (c) the defendant, "the defendant, on May 10, 2013, e-mail," respectively, read "the plaintiff, on May 10, 2013, e-mail."

The letter 9-6 of the first instance judgment "It is reasonable to see that the instant exclusive contract has expired without implied renewal on April 3, 2013," and the letter 5-6 of the first instance judgment " It is reasonable to see that the instant exclusive contract has expired on April 3, 2013 with the expiry of the contract term by implied agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant."

The 14th 10th 10th 14th 10 of the judgment of the first instance was “Defendant from April 15, 2013” to “Defendant from the Plaintiff on April 15, 2013,” respectively, and the 11th 1th 1st am “Plaintiff on May 10, 2013” to “Defendant on May 10, 2013,” respectively.

2. Additional determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. (1) Whether the instant exclusive agreement was automatically renewed or not is automatically renewed, i.e., a kind of investment contract against the Defendant, which was a sort of the Plaintiff’s assertion, with regard to the nature of the instant exclusive agreement, with the Plaintiff and the Defendant considered the long-term contract period at the time of entering into the instant exclusive agreement, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not notify in writing of their intent to terminate the agreement by March 4, 2013, which was 30 days before the expiration date of the instant exclusive agreement. As such, the instant exclusive agreement was automatically renewed in accordance with Article 11 of the instant exclusive agreement, and the circumstances that occurred thereafter are not elements to consider in determining whether to renew the agreement. (2)

arrow