logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.23 2018가단5231782
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 21, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a sales agency contract with the Defendant for D sales business (hereinafter “instant contract”) located outside C of the petition-gu, Cheongju-si (hereinafter “instant business”).

Among the instant contracts, the main contents of the instant contract are as follows.

(However, “A” is the Defendant, and “B” is the Plaintiff). Article 8 (Sale by Units) and “B,” set the following terms and conditions of sale by units:

B shall complete the sale of responsibilities by period.

At least 50% from the date of commencement of sale to 9 months from the date of commencement of sale for a period of 50% or more from the date of commencement of sale for a period of 3 months or more (10% or more from the date of commencement of sale for a period of 10% or more from the date of commencement of sale for a period of 5 months or more (116,200,000 won or more from the date of conclusion of the contract)

Provided, That when the contract period and the basic fee are changed, the performance guarantee insurance policy corresponding thereto shall be submitted again in accordance with the contract period.

(2) The amount of guarantee for performance of contract, etc. under paragraph (1) shall revert to A where this contract is cancelled or terminated under Article 19 (1), or Eul violates any obligation under this contract.

In this regard, if the amount of damage of Party A exceeds the contract deposit amount, Party B shall additionally compensate Party A for the amount of excess damage.

Article 19 [Cancellation or Termination of Contract] (1) A may cancel or terminate this contract where any of the following causes arises to B:

2. Where Eul suspends the business of subdivision or obstructs the sales by the third party designated by Gap or Gap without justifiable grounds.

7. Where Eul fails to achieve the ratio of parcelling-out of responsibility by period under each subparagraph of Article 8.

B. The Plaintiff’s policyholder on November 30, 2017 between E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) and E Co., Ltd. is the Plaintiff.

arrow