logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.06.30 2015나34172
약정금
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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases of dismissal or addition as set forth in paragraph (2). Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with

2. Part 12 written or added " May 14, 2014" shall be construed as " May 11, 2014"; "4,2220,000 won shall be paid by July 11, 2014" as "4,280,000 won by July 10, 2014"; "3,840,000 won" in the 7th 15th 15 parallel shall be construed as "3,888,00 won", respectively.

In order to add the purport of rejecting evidence additionally submitted in the trial to support the defendant's assertion that the plaintiffs violated their duty to maintain trade secrets, the letter of "A No. 1" in 8th 17th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be written with "B No. 1 and 9".

The following shall be added to the eight last sentence of the first instance judgment:

3) The defendant asserts that since the company that supplied originals to the plaintiff A is Korea arms farming association and H is the same company as F and the franchisor is the same company as F, in light of the tax invoice, etc., the other party to the transaction with the plaintiff is not the defendant but the corporation H, the defendant does not have any obligation to comply with the plaintiffs' claims.

According to the statement Nos. 2, 3, 8, 10, and 12 of Eul (including the number of pages), the plaintiff A received a tax invoice for the original price in the name of "H" from the supplier, on the other hand, H or the defendant is supplied with the original from the Korea Sale Co., Ltd. and the above Korea Sale Co., Ltd. released the original to the ody point operated by the plaintiff A.

However, as seen earlier, the claim of this case does not seek the payment of the settlement amount under the entrusted operation contract of this case, but is agreed upon by agreement.

arrow