2014Gaz. 2234 Roti

○○○ Skik Promotion Agency

Park ○○○

1. Ma○○;

2. ○○ shock S&C Co., Ltd. ( Jeju ○○○ Sacks Co., Ltd. prior to the alteration);

○ ○○

[Judgment of the court below]

March 13, 2015

May 29, 2015

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 100,000,000 won with 20% interest per annum from December 17, 2014 to the date of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The representative director of the Plaintiff’s representative is the head of ○○ Sacker’s team in 1925, and the Plaintiff is a corporation that runs a traditional music and marina business under the trade name of ○○ Sacker’s “○○”. The Defendant ○ O show Sacker Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant corporation”) is a corporation established on February 26, 2013 for the purpose of operating the permanent performance hall and operating the business.

B. Around March 2013, the Plaintiff and the Korea Rice Association, an incorporated association, concluded a "contract for the exclusive delegation of the business of ○○○○○○ and Kim○○, the husband of the representative director of the Defendant corporation, in Jeju-do, with the following terms and conditions (hereinafter referred to as "the instant contract", and see Gap evidence, Eul evidence, and Eul evidence 1).

2. The contract is concluded as follows with respect to the entire delegation of the exclusive business rights within the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province. Article 2 (Delegation Contents) 1. The exclusive business rights and the name of the ○○○○○○○○○○ (including the ○○○○○○○○○, hereinafter referred to as the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○”) and the 2. 5-year period from the date of preparation of this contract (the extension of the contract period for the project) to the 10-day ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ and the 2-year ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ and the 2-year ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ and the 3-year 5-year ○○○○○○○○○○).

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 11, 14, 15, Eul evidence 1 (including documentary evidence attached with numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim (i) barring any special circumstance, Defendant Part ○○, barring any special circumstance, sought by the Plaintiff from July 13, 2013, which was the starting date of public performance, pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 3 of the instant contract.

12. up to 10 months, ○○○ Sacker’s exclusive business license fee of KRW 100,00,000, and KRW 000 ( = 10,000,000 x 10 months) and the obligation to pay damages for delay.

(2) Next, the following circumstances are acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the evidence duly admitted:

① Although the contract of this case is not specified as the party to the contract of this case, the defendant corporation also has the obligation to pay 100,000,000 won to the plaintiff as the joint proprietor of the defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ after the contract of this case, and the main agent who received support, such as contribution under Article 3 of the contract of this case from the plaintiff or the Korean Rice Association as the party to the contract of this case is also the defendant corporation. Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the contract of this case stipulates that the exclusive business right fees shall be paid directly to the defendant ○○○○, etc. or the business owner involved in the defendant ○○○, etc., and Article 7 of the contract of this case provides that the defendant ○○, etc. shall delegate all the exclusive business rights to the business proprietor (the business progress company) or conduct joint business. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant corporation also has the obligation to pay 100,000 won to the plaintiff as the joint proprietor of the contract of this case (3).

17. There is an obligation to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the date of full payment to the date of full payment.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that (1) since they did not perform their contractual obligations under the instant contract from the end of November 2013 to the Plaintiff, they did not have any obligation to pay royalties to the Plaintiff since they did not perform performance projects, such as interference with the contribution required by the Plaintiff, etc. However, there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s non-performance of the Plaintiff’s obligation by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit. (2) The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s representative director’s ○○○ acquired money from the Plaintiff for the total sum of KRW 254,430,50 as the purchase and installation cost of lighting fixtures and other subsidiary materials, and the installation cost of sound equipment, etc., and therefore, they did not have any reason to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s tort liability against the Plaintiff on the ground that there was no further evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s fraud as to the Defendant’s charges on the Defendant’s tort (i.e., the Defendant’s accusation)., which did not exist., the Defendant’s allegation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-hoon