The case holding that fees for cancellation due to the cancellation of the selling of a public performance pocket ticket shall not be deemed to fall under the goods acquired by the commission agent on consignment or the money received by the commission agent due to the handling of delegated affairs, and thus, shall belong to the sales agent of the ticket.

The case holding that the cancellation fee due to the cancellation of the sales of the public performance pockets shall not be deemed to be the goods acquired by the commission agent or the money received by the delegated affairs, on the ground that the sales agent's sales agent's name does not constitute a commissioned sales agent if he received the sales agent's commission from the performance planning agent, but the sales agent does not obtain the cancellation fee for the buyer's non-performance of the sales agent's contract while performing the sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's cancellation fee

Articles 101 and 103 of the Commercial Act, Article 684 of the Civil Act

Newcom Co., Ltd. and six others (Law Firm Han-U.S. et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Intetracian Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeongsung, Attorney Lee Lee-woo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant)

April 29, 2010

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay each of the above amounts to the plaintiffs with 20% interest per annum from the day after the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of Gap's 1 through 6, 9, 11, 22 (including the number of each branch; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's 1 through 7, and the whole purport of oral arguments:

A. The Plaintiffs are companies that planning and produce performances of musical words, etc., and the Defendant is a company that performs cultural, artistic, and sports events as well as sales agency services, etc. using the Internet.

B. The Plaintiffs: (a) concluded each of the following contracts on vicarious sales of diskettes with the Defendant to vicariously sell each performance ticket on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and to receive from 5% to 7.5% of the sales commission for the ticket sales (hereinafter “each sales agency contract of this case”) with each of the following contents, which are planned and produced by the Plaintiffs through the “switk”, which is the Internet service system operated by the Defendant, through the Defendant’s Internet service system:

In this Arrangement, the purpose of this Arrangement is to determine matters necessary for the Defendant’s vicarious sale of the tickets for the tickets in the public performance held by the Plaintiffs through the eket comprehensive reservation service system and the kym sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp s (hereinafter “sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp s.: The Plaintiffs are paid sp sp sp sp s a sales commission to the Defendant.

C. The Defendant: (a) allowed the purchaser to purchase a ticket through the Defendant and cancel the ticket on the day of towing; (b) allowed the purchaser to cancel the ticket without a cancellation fee; and (c) deducted 10% of the ticket price from the cancellation fee; and (d) refunded only the remainder of the ticket price; and (e) allowed the purchaser to cancel the ticket sales after five p.m. on the day before the performance.

D. In relation to each performance listed in the separate sheet (the details of cancellation fees) that the Defendant received as a sales agent from the Plaintiffs, the title “for example sales” is identical to that indicated in the “for example sales” column of the same list, and the cancelled ticket is identical to that indicated in the “purchase” column of the same list. Accordingly, the Defendant sold a ticket, such as that indicated in the “sale Purchase” column of the same list, and the sales proceeds are the same as indicated in the “sale Price” column of the same list, and the cancellation fees due to the cancellation of the sales are as indicated in the same list.

E. The content of the terms and conditions on the use of the Defendant’s terk sales services for the Defendant’s members are as follows.

Article 38 (Beket Sales Fees) of the Schedule contained in the main text) The defendant imposes a sales commission on the pre-paid services provided by the defendant, and receives a differential sales commission in accordance with the membership class and method in the case of each pre-paid service, such as performance/cont. (1) The cancellation of the pre-paid ticket by the purchaser may be possible before the event/sale is cancelled. (4) The buyer may directly cancel the pre-paid ticket by visiting the pre-paid sales office designated by the company or the direct management office before the cancellation of the pre-paid ticket. (5) If the buyer fails to take the procedure of cancellation before the cancellation of the pre-paid ticket, the pre-paid sales office may not cancel or refund the pre-paid sales office’s pre-paid sales office’s fee and the pre-paid sales office’s pre-paid sales office’s re-paid sales office’s re-paid sales office’s re-paid sales office’s fee and the pre-paid sales office’s pre-paid sales office’s pre-paid sales office’s re-paid sales office’s re-paid fee.

2. Determination:

A. The parties' assertion

1) Pursuant to Article 103 of the Commercial Act or Article 684 of the Civil Act, the plaintiffs asserts that each sales agency contract of this case constitutes delegation of commission or sales business of diskettes, and that since the cancellation commission is money or other things received through the handling of delegated affairs, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the corresponding money stated in the "total of cancellation fees" column in the attached amount list, which is equivalent to the cancellation commission received from the buyers who have cancelled the sales by way of the sales agency, and the damages for delay.

2) On this point, the Defendant asserts that: (a) in light of the terms and conditions of each sales agency contract of this case and the circumstances in which the Plaintiffs did not raise any objection against the reversion of the cancellation fee, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant agreed to vest the cancellation fee in the Defendant; and (b) each sales agency contract of this case cannot be deemed as a consignment; and (c) the cancellation fee is not the money acquired in return for the handling of delegated affairs, but the Defendant received in accordance with the expected compensation agreement between the Defendant and the buyer; and (d) there is no separate agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff to vest the cancellation fee in the Plaintiff;

B. Determination on the issue of this case

As seen later, the main issue of this case is to determine the legitimate owner of the sales agency contract of this case by clarifying the legal nature of the sales agency contract of this case and the cancellation fee of this case, since there is no express provision on whom the cancellation fee belongs between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

1) First, we examine the legal nature of each of the instant sales agency contracts.

According to the above facts, the defendant was delegated by the plaintiffs to sell diskettes in his name to the members who joined the Internet service system operated by the defendant, and received sales agency fees from the plaintiffs, so each sales agency contract of this case shall be deemed to fall under the consignment sales (the defendant's assertion that each sales agency contract of this case is constituted a direct performance viewing contract between the plaintiffs and the purchaser, and therefore, each sales agency contract of this case does not fall under the consignment sales. However, the buyer's exercise of the right to directly performance viewing against the plaintiffs is attributable to the realization of the right to directly performance viewing, and the subject of the right to and obligation of the sales contract between the defendant and the purchaser is not the plaintiffs, and the defendant's assertion is without merit).

2) Furthermore, we examine whether the commission agent’s fee constitutes “goods acquired on consignment basis” or “money received through the processing of delegated affairs.”

In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 9, 11, 14, and 15, each sales agency contract of this case is not explicitly provided for the settlement of cancellation fees, and according to the criteria for the settlement of consumer disputes (amended on October 16, 2006) standards by item among the criteria for the settlement of consumer disputes by notification of the Fair Trade Commission (amended on October 16, 2006), when the purchaser demands refund due to the cancellation of the public performance, the amount calculated by deducting the total amount by 10% by 7 days before the public performance day, after deducting 20% by 30% until the public performance day, by 3 days before the public performance day, and by 1 day before the public performance day, it can be recognized that the entire amount should be refunded by 30% if the public performance day is cancelled by 3 days before the public performance day.

However, the above facts and evidence revealed as follows. ① The defendant concludes an agreement on the use of tweet services with the purchaser separately from the above sales agency contract of this case; ② if the purchaser purchased tweet sales commission from the purchaser's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales fee's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] Claim Amount: omitted

[Attachment 2] Details of cancellation fees: omitted

Judge Yellowified (Presiding Judge) For the highest number of hydrogens