logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2014.06.26 2012다44792
물품판매수수료
Text

The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court acknowledged the facts and circumstances as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and determined that the instant contract does not explicitly state on-site management, such as construction guidance, goods inspection, and civil petition resolution, as alleged by the Defendant, but includes on-site management, and that the Plaintiff did not conduct on-site management after October 14, 2009.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the fact-finding and determination by the court below are justified. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles

2. As to the third ground for appeal

A. On January 12, 2007, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into the contract of this case where the plaintiff can sell the products of the Solar Babscoo and their accessory materials handled by the defendant at the construction site ordered by the local government, etc. and the defendant will pay the sales commission in return for the contract, and accordingly, the plaintiff engaged in business activities for the sale of the goods. The court below determined that the plaintiff could refuse to pay the sales commission incurred thereafter on the ground that the field management business was not the principal obligation under the contract, but the field management business was not the main obligation under the contract. Thus, the plaintiff did not perform the field management business after October 14, 2009.

B. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

One of the obligations arising from the contract is the principal obligation and what is the incidental obligation is expressed when the contract is concluded, regardless of the independent value of the benefit.

arrow