logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.11.14 2016가단71347
계약금 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) determined the amount of KRW 10,560,000 for cosmetics sold by the Defendant and the Plaintiff; (b) concluded an advertising contract with the Defendant on July 25, 2016, which provides for one-time forwarding to a press company; (c) three-time forwarding out of the block, three-time printing out of the block; (d) three-time printing out of related screening; and (e) two-time automatic completion exposure; and (e) around that time, on August 2016, one-time printing out of SNS; (e) three-time printing out of the block; (e) one-time printing out of the block; (g) three-time printing out of the block; and (g) two-time automatic completion exposure (hereinafter “instant advertising contract”); and (g) paid to the Defendant 10,560,000.

B. After the Defendant fulfilled all the contractual terms in July 2016, the Defendant: (a) around August 28, 2016, in relation to the exposure to SNS among the contractual terms to be performed on August 2016, the Defendant demanded C to post the Plaintiff’s photograph on his own daily gram on the Plaintiff’s own website, SNS, etc. (hereinafter “redistribution”); (b) the Plaintiff demanded C’s photograph to suspend the distribution of culture to the Plaintiff on his own website, SNS, etc. for the purpose of promoting cosmetics; and (c) the Plaintiff suspended the cultivation.

C. On September 19, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to color an artist who can cultivate advertising materials. On September 19, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the celebling of celebling pictures to use and disseminate them for the promotion of cosmetics. Although D photographs cited by the Plaintiff’s cosmetics were taken, the SNS exposure advertisements were not run properly due to the reproduction of photographs, etc.

On October 17, 2016, the Plaintiff posted a photograph cited by the Plaintiff on his own account of the Defendant and E, and entered into a contract for artist goods co-ordembling with the condition that the Plaintiff would grow and disseminate the pictures of E, and that the Plaintiff would be able to cultivate and disseminate the pictures of D on the condition that the Plaintiff would have supported D.

(e) around October 21, 2016, E is on its own personal data set.

arrow