logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.23 2017가단5211781
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from November 22, 2017 to August 23, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 9, 2013, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant works”) produced and installed the instant works in a non-explosion space of C hotel (former D hotel, E, E, E, and E) operated by the Defendant with a shape of “E” (hereinafter “E”).

B. From August 1, 2013 to July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a consignment contract under which the Defendant shall exhibit and sell the Plaintiff’s products at the hotel of the instant case from August 1, 2013 to July 31, 2014, and the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the remainder of 70% of the normal selling price with the commission commission (hereinafter “instant consignment contract”).

Around December 7, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “The F hotel L&L and G operation contract was terminated as of December 31, 2016, and the use of H hotel brand was terminated from January 1, 2017, and the hotel business was suspended from January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017, and the instant consignment contract was terminated as of December 31, 2016.”

C. On April 2017, the Defendant removed or destroyed the instant work to a policeman.

[Ground of recognition] Documents Nos. 4, 6, 7, and 15, and images of Gap evidence No. 9

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. As to the claim for property damage related to the damage of the instant work, the Plaintiff asserted with the Defendant on March 20, 2013, and the Plaintiff: (a) entered into a verbal agreement with the Defendant to install the instant work free of charge; and (b) manufactured the instant work; and (c) on November 26, 2013, there was no request, etc. for the second work after the instant work was installed; and (d) would recover the instant work if the Plaintiff did not perform the oral contract at the expense of purchase or rental; and (e) would not do so, demand the Plaintiff to pay the cost of the instant work at the expense of purchase or rental.

On April 14, 2017, the Plaintiff arbitrarily dismantled and damaged the instant work, and partly lost it, and kept it in custody.

arrow