logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.11 2018가합556612
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim against the main defendant B and the conjunctive defendant C are all dismissed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 1, 1993, the Plaintiff entered into an exclusive sales contract with D on the products E (hereinafter “E”) in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant sales supply contract”).

B. Thereafter, D was changed to F following the process of merger, trade name change, etc.

C. On April 1, 1997, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with F to receive USD 3 U.S. dollars from F as subsidies or compensation for the sales promotion expenses of E products (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. F changed its trade name to G, and was merged with Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”), the primaryly Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) has been engaged in the business under the instant sales supply contract and service contract, and as a preparatory Defendant C is the final successor to the instant sales supply contract and service contract, and is obligated to pay the agreed amount to each Plaintiff under the instant service contract.

B. Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff was leading to the transaction under the instant sales supply contract with Defendant C, the Plaintiff suffered damages due to the defectiveness of the E products. Defendant C has agreed to compensate for the total amount of KRW 472,931,00 among the E products with the manufacturing number of “SA501”, and KRW 358,699, and KRW 114,232, among the E products with the manufacturing number of “SA404,” the manufacturing number of “SA404.” As the case of the contract under the instant service contract, Defendant B and P, as the case of the contract under the instant service contract, are primarily liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the defectiveness amounting to KRW 40,073,602, which is the market price of the above 472,931.

3. Determination

(a) evidence Nos. 4, 7 through 10, and .

arrow