logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.05.08 2013가단34887
사용료
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 56,870,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from August 1, 2013 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company running a business related to the distribution of digital consular system.

The Defendant produced motion pictures “26 years” (hereinafter “instant motion pictures”) and distributed the said motion pictures ton of Scenton Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Scenton”) as a company running business related to the production, investment, distribution, etc. of motion pictures and other video works.

B. On October 1, 2012, Scenton entered into a contract for film screening with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Memben”) on October 1, 2012 to screen the instant motion picture, and the instant motion picture was shown in the theater.

C. After the completion of the film screening of the instant film, Memboxes paid to the Plaintiff the Defendant the remainder of the restricted amount of KRW 56,870,00,00, which the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff from among the restricted amount of theater fee in the admission fee.

On February 2, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a digital cinema license agreement (hereinafter “instant license agreement”) with the Defendant, the main purpose of which is to screen the content invested, imported, and distributed by the Defendant using the digital system installed in the theater located in the Republic of Korea, retroactively on November 22, 2012, on the date of which the Plaintiff entered into the instant license agreement (hereinafter “instant license agreement”). The relevant part of the agreement is as follows.

[Contract for the Supply of Digital Content Content] The Plaintiff and the importer, the investment company, or the Defendant, the distributor (hereinafter “user”) set forth the following matters in order to provide for all matters related to the transaction in which the Plaintiff would pay the Plaintiff the “digital image distribution cost” to the Plaintiff for the consideration for the Plaintiff’s smooth distribution of digital content by providing the devices that can be realized in images with the development of users’ content.

arrow