logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2012.10.10 2011나103559
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the entry of the judgment in this case are as follows: (a) the second “Defendant” of the first instance judgment 9, 12, 9, 12, 3, 21, 21, 3, 3, and the “Defendant” of the first instance judgment as “Plaintiff”; and (b) the same applies to the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment, except for addition of the following matters to the judgment, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. Additional determination (the plaintiff added the defendant's grounds for default at the trial and added the plaintiff's claim for damages due to the tort as preliminary)

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the Defendant Union has a duty to actively cooperate with the Plaintiff’s sales agency business under the instant sales agency contract and to resolve internal and external civil petitions, the Defendant Union is a full-time director who directly executes all the affairs related to the instant sales agency business, and as a part-time director who is the Defendant Union’s mandatory director interferes with the Plaintiff’s sales agency business, the Defendant Union is liable for nonperformance pursuant to Article 391 of the Civil Act, as it intentionally obstructed the Plaintiff’s sales agency business. 2) If the right to sell the instant commercial building, such as the Defendant Union’s assertion, was in the position of the Commercial Promotion Committee, the Defendant, despite having the authority to grant the Plaintiff the right to sell the commercial building, caused damage to the Plaintiff due to the failure to transfer the right

B. The Defendant Union, on January 10, 2004, asserted that the director of the Defendant Union G-1 intentionally obstructed the Plaintiff’s sales agent, was appointed as the president of the partnership. However, on February 2, 2006, the Defendant Union’s appointment was suspended by the court’s provisional disposition, and F was appointed as the acting director. On August 29, 2006, D was replaced by the acting director on December 9, 2009.

arrow