beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff; Defendant B shall be KRW 6,079,200; Defendant C shall be KRW 5,720,400; Defendant D shall be KRW 2,600,400; and each of the above amounts.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 31, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the business registration regarding the Internet installation business with the trade name “E”. 2) S K K Doz Doband Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SK Doband”), which entered into a contract on the entrustment of the customer center (hereinafter “SK”), has been responsible for the installation and repair of the Internet to local Internet communications business operators, including the Plaintiff.
3) The Defendants conducted online installation and repair work requested by the Plaintiff from Kace Communications at the site. B. On April 2015, 2015, Kace Communications (1) notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff should deduct the amount equivalent to the value of the above equipment out of the service cost, while the Defendants did not receive the total amount of KRW 4,1960,00 from the above company.
2) Before filing the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 24 million out of the service costs to be paid by car lease communications on the ground of deduction of the value of the unclaimed equipment. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Determination
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendants did not enter part of the Internet equipment into the Car Lease Communications by intention or negligence while performing the duties of installing the Internet, and the Car Lease Communications deducts the amount of KRW 24 million from the service cost to be paid to the Plaintiff, thereby compensating the Plaintiff for damages to the said company. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of money indicated in the purport of the claim calculated in proportion to the value of each equipment and the amount of damages for delay, which is calculated in proportion to the amount of the respective equipment cost of KRW 24 million. 2) The Defendants’ assertion made a list of equipment, which the Defendants did not have received each month, and deducted the amount equivalent to the above equipment from
The plaintiff asserts in this case.