logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.07 2014가합10514
선급금등 반환
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 330,000,000 won and each year from January 30, 2014 to October 7, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on December 1989 for the purpose of distributing and selling sound and image products. The Defendant Company A (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company established on December 12, 201 for the purpose of producing and distributing video and music-related digital content.

B. On January 16, 2012, the Plaintiff and Defendant Company: (a) produced OST’s musical sources and music records; and (b) supplied them to the Plaintiff from May of the same year; (c) the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the sale and distribution of the said music sources, etc. (hereinafter “instant contract”); and (d) Defendant B, the representative director of the Defendant Company, jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant Company’s liability to the Plaintiff under the said contract.

The plaintiff under the contract of this case

1.19. Departments

1. 27. 110 million won in total (including value-added tax) shall be deposited in the Defendant Company as an advance payment, respectively.

C. Meanwhile, at the same time, the Defendant Company entered into the instant contract, and at the same time, entered into the “Agreement on the Production and Business of the World OST” with the Defendant Company’s personal and financial responsibility, instead of producing the sound and sound records of the Defendant Company, with the Defendant Company’s personnel and financial responsibility.

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

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Since the Defendant Company entered into the instant contract as seen earlier, it did not produce or deliver to the Plaintiff the sound source of the instant OST according to the said contract.

However, according to the whole purport of Gap evidence No. 3 and arguments, the defendant company's OST of this case.

arrow