beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates video production business, etc., and the Defendant is a company that sells C in the Internet shopping or home shopping by buying them in a large quantity.
B. On August 2017, the Plaintiff produced promotional video works C (hereinafter “instant video works”) upon request from the Defendant through D and offered them to the Defendant.
C. On August 21, 2017, the Defendant paid KRW 23,000,000 to the Plaintiff for the production cost of the instant video works.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3 through 6, Eul evidence 2-1, the purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) A summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the production of the instant video works with the Defendant on August 12, 2017 at the Defendant’s request of the Defendant for a film production of KRW 50,985,00, and the Plaintiff completed the performance of services on October 12, 2017. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 27,985,00,000, which remains after subtracting the amount of KRW 23,000,000, which was deposited on August 21, 2017 from the amount of KRW 50,985,00,000, and delay damages therefrom, which was paid by the Defendant’s agent or delegated with the authority by the Defendant. (b) The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion only requested the production of the instant video works through D, a sales agent of C, or a bareboat business operator.
D is not a representative of the defendant or a person who has been authorized by the defendant.
The Plaintiff unilaterally claims an excessive amount of service cost (video production cost) based on the written estimate prepared by the Plaintiff. The Defendant paid an amount of KRW 23,000,000 according to the tax invoice issued on August 21, 2017, and completed the payment of the service cost (video production cost) sufficient for the production of the instant video work, thereby complying with the Plaintiff’s claim.