beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that operates the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Nowon-gu Private Teaching Institute for Gambling (hereinafter “the instant private teaching institute”). The Plaintiff provided classical videos to students through Odracian lecture and Odu Skol (hereinafter “Aukol”). The Defendant is an instructor who gives lectures to C in the name of “B”.
B. On October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the provision of a lecture (hereinafter “instant lecture contract”) with the content that the Defendant provided a public official C’s lecture and paid a certain amount of lecture fees to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”). From January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million with the exclusive contract amount to the Defendant.
C. When entering into the instant lecture contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant entered into a contract with E.S., setting the contract term from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015, and concluded a contract with E.S. that the Defendant would exclusively provide E.S. lecture content recorded and video recorded in the instant private teaching institute (hereinafter “instant lecture content contract”).
The number of students increased due to the Defendant’s offering of C’s lectures under the instant lecture contract and the instant lecture content contract, and the Defendant became a so-called “one another instructor (referring to the one with the largest number of students)” in the market of C’s lecture. E. The Plaintiff has negotiated with the Defendant on June 26, 2015 to conclude a new lecture contract with the Defendant from June 26, 2015, which was six months before the conclusion of the instant lecture contract and the instant lecture content contract. The Defendant, on November 2, 2015, notified the Plaintiff that “the Defendant was the expiration of the instant lecture contract with the Plaintiff on December 31, 2015.”
From January 1, 2016, the contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is.