2016 Gohap 205591 Service Costs

Lee & Lee Co., Ltd.

Quaker Quaker Co., Ltd.

July 11, 2017

September 5, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

For the Defendant’s KRW 387,11,40 and KRW 150,665,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 6% interest per annum from February 1, 2016 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint in this case, from August 1, 2016 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint in this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company running a business such as the development and service of professional call software in the field of telecommunications, and the Defendant is a company running a business such as the development of software for a type of business such as network.

B. Around March 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract with Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “TT development services”) with the Defendant to subcontract part of the Defendant’s services, such as “PT server development” in the above contract terms (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”), and the main contents are as follows.

계약금액: 1,400,000,000원 (부가세 별도)계약기간: 2015. 3. 9. ~ 2015. 8. 31.대금지급조건: 1차 검수 완료 후 30%, 2차 검수 완료 후 40%, 최종 검수 완료 후 30%제5조 (개발비)① 피고는 원고에게 본 개발용역에 대한 대가로 총 금일십사억원(₩1,400,000,000/부가세 별도, 국내 출장비 포함)을 지급한다.② 피고는 전항의 개발비를 다음 각호와 같이 원고에게 지급하며, 지급일에 대하여 양사간 별도의 합의가 없을 시 삼성전자의 각 단계별 검수 승인 통지가 도달한 후 피고가 삼성전자로부터 대가를 지급받은 날로부터 7영업일 이내 지급한다.1. 중도금 1차: 개발비의 30%(420,000,000원/부가세 별도)2. 중도금 2차: 개발비의 40%(560,000,000원/부가세 별도)3. 잔금: 개발비의 30%(420,000,000원/부가세 별도)제10조 (개발결과물)① 원고는 본 계약에 의해서 발생되는 다음 각 호와 같은 개발결과물을 각 단계별 또는 개발 완료시 피고에게 제출하여야 한다.1. 소스코드, 설계문서(기본설계서, 상세설계서)2. 시험절차서, 연동시험 결과서, 기술지원내역 및 결과서3. 사용자 설명서, 개발 완료 보고서제11조 (개발결과물 제출 및 검수)① 원고는 “개발용역 세부내역 상의 일정에 따라 피고가 지정하는 장소에 중간 결과물 및최종 결과물을 납품하고, 피고는 이를 제출받은 날로부터 10일 이내에 개발승인조건에 따라 검수하여야 한다. 검수 및 승인통지는 피고의 개발용역관리시스템을 통해 진행한다.③ 원고가 제출한 개발결과물이 검수에 합격하는 경우 피고는 원고에게 검수 결과서를 교부하고 개발결과물을 인수한다.제13조 (개발결과물 귀속 등)① 본 계약에 따른 개발수행으로 발생된 개발결과물은 피고의 소유이며, 그에 따르는 지식재산권을 국내외에 출원 및 등록할 수 있는 권리도 피고가 가진다.제14조 (지식재산권)① 본 계약 수행으로 발생되는 개발결과물에 대한 지식재산권은 일체 피고에게 귀속되는 것으로 한다. 단, 원고의 선행기술에 대한 지식재산권은 그러하지 아니하다.② 원고는 본 계약의 수행으로 발생되는 모든 지식재산권에 대해 지체없이 피고에게 그 내용을 통지하여야 하고, 피고는 이를 피고 명의로 출원한다.③ 원고는 지식재산권의 출원과 등록진행에 대한 피고의 지원요청이 있을 때 성실하게 협조하여야 하며, 지식재산권의 출원 및 등록에 소요되는 비용은 피고가 부담한다.④ 원고는 선행기술에 대한 지식재산권 중 본 계약과 관련한 지식재산권으로써 피고가 본 계약 이후에 개발결과물을 실시하는 것을 제약하지 않는다.⑤ 원고는 피고가 개발결과물을 공표하는 경우 피고의 선택에 따라 원고의 실명 또는 이명을 표시하거나 표시하지 않는 것에 동의한다.⑥ 원고는 개발결과물을 제품 등에 적용함에 있어 필요한 경우 피고가 개발결과물의 내용, 형식, 형상, 색채, 모양 등을 변경하는 것에 동의한다.제15조 (선행기술)① 원고는 피고가 삼성전자의 국내외 안전망 사업에 공급(사용, 양도, 대여 등)하는 용도에 한해서는 통상실시권을 허여한다.② 본 개발과제의 완료일에 원고는 도입기술에 대해 소스코드의 형태 및 관련 기술 자료일체를 제공하여야 하며, 피고는 해당 기술의 확인 이후 도입기술에 대한 보완 및 관련 자료를 추가로 요청할 수 있으며 원고는 도입 기술 관련 피고의 요청에 성실히 응해야한다.

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 420,000,000 in the first intermediate payment.

D. The Defendant paid KRW 212,240,000 to the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 170,000 among the 2-2 and 2-3 intermediate payments.

E. On May 31, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 164,500,000 out of the remainder.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the plaintiff completed all of the service duties under the contract of this case, the defendant refused to pay the service price by demanding the plaintiff to provide the source code, etc. of the technology held before the plaintiff entered into the contract of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the introduction technology of this case"). Thus, there is no justifiable reason for refusal for the following reasons.

① According to Article 15(2) of the contract of this case, the Plaintiff is providing the Defendant with the source code of the introduced technology of this case. However, the said contract provision is null and void pursuant to Article 104 of the Civil Act as a very unfair contract provision.

② Even if the above provision is not null and void, the duty to provide source code is merely an incidental duty to the instant contract.

③ After entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant made an oral agreement with the Defendant to perform the obligation to provide the instant introduced technology, as in the same manner as the Defendant entered into the instant contract with the original place of origin. Since the Defendant agreed to provide the Defendant’s introduced technology by utilizing the technology deposit system, the Plaintiff is sufficient to provide the Defendant with the instant introduced technology by using the technology deposit system, but the Defendant refuses it without justifiable grounds.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 387,11,400 won for the service payment and damages for delay.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. The Plaintiff sought service payment from the Defendant on the premise that the Plaintiff’s development services under the instant contract were fully performed. As such, this paper examines whether the Plaintiff fulfilled all the obligations under the instant contract on the premise of the claim.

B. First, according to Articles 10 and 11 of the instant contract, the Plaintiff shall submit the results of the development under the instant contract to the Defendant each number of tallyings, and the contract of this case (the results of the instant contract’s “in each stage No. No. No. No. 1) includes the completed source code, the report on the result of the analysis (regular/dynamic dispute). In addition, according to Article 15(2) of the instant contract, the Plaintiff shall provide all the type of the soften code and related technical data with respect to the instant introduced technology, and the Defendant may request additional supplementation of the introduced technology and related materials after confirmation of the relevant technology, and the Plaintiff shall faithfully comply with the Defendant’s request related to the introduced technology. In full view of each of the provisions of the instant contract, the Plaintiff shall provide the Defendant with the soften code for the introduced technology.

However, the plaintiff is a person who did not provide a source code for the introduction technology of this case to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that all of the plaintiff's obligations under the contract of this case were fulfilled is without merit.

C. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the contract of this case is obviously unfair under Article 15(2) of the Civil Act, and thus null and void under Article 104 of the Civil Act. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant took a heavy advantage of the Plaintiff’s old-age, rash, or inexperience (see Article 104 of the Civil Act), and there is no ground for the Plaintiff’

D. In addition, in distinguishing the Plaintiff’s duty to provide the source code from the principal obligation among the contractual obligations, whether the Plaintiff’s duty to provide the source code is merely an incidental obligation, and distinguishing the principal obligation from the main obligation, regardless of the independent value of payment, it shall be determined by the parties’ reasonable intent expressed at the time when the contract was concluded or clearly expressed in terms of the situation at that time, and such various circumstances as the content, purpose, result of non-performance, etc. of the contract should be considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da63726, Jan. 27, 2006). The following circumstances recognized by the entire evidence and arguments, namely, the duty to provide the Plaintiff’s source code, are the duty stipulated in the contract in this case. ② Even under Article 13 of the contract in this case, the result of the development of the contract in this case is owned by the Defendant and the right to file and register intellectual property rights under the contract in Korea and abroad, and the Defendant has the right to use the development result, profits, and right to dispose of the contract in this case (see paragraph (2).

E. Next, the plaintiff asserted that he agreed to provide the introduction technology of this case by using the technology deposit system with the defendant, but this part of the claim is rejected as there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall have jurisdiction over the renewal of judge

Judges Cho Jong-chul

Judge Han-hee