logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.08.18 2016나51293
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and the incidental costs of appeal shall be individually considered.

Reasons

1. As to the cause of claim

A. The Defendant, on March 21, 2014, leased 2 sets of the credit card terminal devices equivalent to KRW 550,000, 200, 200,000 from the Plaintiff, which are equivalent to KRW 3,000,00,000 per month, instead of being exempt from the management expenses of credit card terminal devices and the management expenses of POS terminal devices equivalent to KRW 11,00 per month, monthly, 5,000, instead of being exempted from the management expenses of the credit card terminal devices equivalent to KRW 5,00, the Defendant used the credit card transaction approval service with the card device provided by the Plaintiff for 5 years in the agreed period. In the event that the use is suspended within the agreed period or replaced with the equipment of another company, the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff’s active damage, including (i) the total amount of business subsidies, management expenses, equipment amount, etc., and (ii) monthly average number of approval x 110 x 18 months (hereinafter “instant service”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination 1) Under the instant provision, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 924,00 ( KRW 11,000 ( KRW 55,00) x 14 months) management expenses for the period of use x 7,500,000 ( KRW 550,000 x 2200,000 x 23,0000 x 23,000 x 2) and damages for delay. 2) Barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff also sought compensation for the amount of KRW 2,178,00 based on the average monthly approval number of 1,10 cases. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant’s average monthly approval number of cases during the period of use of the Plaintiff’s device was 1,100.

2. As to the defendant's argument

A. 1) The Plaintiff did not perform its duty to explain the instant provision. As such, the instant provision cannot be incorporated into the instant contract. 2) The instant provision is a contract with multiple counterparts.

arrow