beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 150,00,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from August 19, 2016 to September 9, 2016.
Reasons
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company established for manufacturing, wholesale and retail business, such as leather products, clothing, paintings, and miscellaneous goods, and the export and import business of leather products, and is a trademark right holder of the “Meat City” trademark indicated in the attached trademark list (hereinafter “instant trademarks”).
Article 4 of the Agreement on the Use of Trademark: The defendant shall have the right to use this trademark within the territory of the Republic of Korea, and shall obtain the consent of the plaintiff if it is necessary to take out goods outside the territory of the Republic of Korea, such as exports, and, in the case of exports, a separate trademark usage fee shall be determined by agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. Article 5: The plaintiff and the defendant shall sell the goods at the specialty stores, department stores, duty-free shops, etc. of high-quality, which are agreed upon, and if they intend to sell the goods at a discount store and Internet shopping mall, they shall obtain the prior consent of the plaintiff, and they shall not sell the goods in conventional markets.
G) The Defendant’s exercise of a special period of department stores, etc. and the discount rate of halogy days run below 30% compared to the arm’s length price. In the event of uniform events, the Defendant ought to endeavor to maintain brand image by proceeding only within 30% of the normal annual sales. In the absence of a separate request, this contract is terminated on June 30, 2015, without the consent of the Defendant. (2) In the event that the Defendant failed to faithfully perform this contract, the Plaintiff may reverse or terminate the contract without obtaining the consent of the Defendant. (3) In the event that the Defendant did not faithfully perform this contract (i.e., the Defendant’s exercise of uniform power or at discount, etc., causing serious damage to the value of the Mearty brand.
Article 9: A price lower than the arm’s length price at the time of termination of this contract without the Plaintiff’s explicit consent.