logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.12.19 2018나2011389
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court's explanation on this part of the facts are as follows: (a) deleted the part of "the third-party 2" among the statements in "1. Basic Facts" from the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) respectively, "H Co., Ltd." from the fifth-party 2 and fourth-party 4 to each "P Co., Ltd.", and it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, pursuant to Article 3 of the exclusive right to supply the goods of this case, was supplied with the Defendant only from the Plaintiff pursuant to the exclusive right to supply the goods of this case. However, the Defendant violated the obligation under the instant goods supply contract by receiving or directly producing it from another company without going through the Plaintiff, and then supplying it to another company. 2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to deliver the goods to the Defendant by setting the Plaintiff’s sales profit rate as an average of 30%.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 691,61,848 [the damages amounting to KRW 343,325,39 (the amount equivalent to KRW 30%) 248,166,00 (the amount equivalent to KRW 827,220,00,000, which was directly produced by the Defendant) (the amount equivalent to KRW 30%) and KRW 100,120,449 (the amount of KRW 30%) and damages amounting to KRW 333,734,832, which was purchased from Q from the Defendant’s company) and damages amounting to KRW 248,166,00 (the amount of KRW 1,144,417,99, which was supplied by the Defendant from the Defendant), and since the instant goods supply contract constitutes a juristic act by the Plaintiff’s former representative director and the Defendant’s manager’s right to represent the supply of the goods and the Defendant’s interest.

2. According to Article 2(1) of the instant goods supply contract, the instant goods supply contract is written.

arrow