(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.01.23 2017나37779

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.01.23 2017나37779

광고대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff set up the advertising fee of KRW 20 million with the defendant to place the advertising fee of KRW 20 million (excluding value-added tax of KRW 2,00,000) in the Internet broadcast "TV Seoul" and published the defendant's abundance advertisement, but only received KRW 11,00,000 from the defendant. The defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the advertising fee of KRW 11,00,000 and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion, in addition to posting a width advertisement of the Defendant’s product, concluded a verbal agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant on the newspaper company and the NAV portal site to report articles concerning the Defendant’s product. As such, the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duty under the above oral agreement, the Defendant terminated the contract with the Plaintiff on June 2, 2016, and after the contract was terminated, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the remainder of advertising fees to the Plaintiff.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement in Gap 1 through 3, and 7, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an advertising contract with the plaintiff on February 11, 2016, stating that "the defendant shall display a width advertisement in the "TV Seoul," issued by the plaintiff: The period of publication: from February 1, 2016 to January 2017 (one year); advertising materials: 20 million won (excluding value-added tax); and payment method: 10 million won on February 25, 2016; 10 million won on May 25, 2016; 200 million won on the newspaper and its website; and the fact that the plaintiff did not have any content on the newspaper and its products from around 201 to 2000,000 won on the newspaper and its website; 200,000 won on the advertisement of this case to the extent that the plaintiff did not have any content on the newspaper and its products."

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.18. 선고 2016가합506330 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.06 2017나89102

-서울동부지방법원 2020.04.23 2018가합113049

-수원지방법원 2017.05.19 2017고정1026

-서울동부지방법원 2016.10.26 2016고단2718