주요 서비스 메뉴 열기 0기사스크랩공유유재석 “소속사 망해 못받

주요 서비스 메뉴 열기 0기사스크랩공유

유재석 “소속사 망해 못받은 출연료 달라” 항소심도 패소
중앙일보 2016.09.30 01:29
페이스북
트위터
카카오톡
더보기
글씨크기조정

방송인 유재석씨 [중앙포토]


방송인 유재석(44)씨와 김용만(48)씨가 “전 소속사가 지급하지 않은 출연료를 달라”며 전 소속사의 채권자들을 상대로 낸 소송 항소심에서 원심과 같이 패소했다.

서울고법 민사22부(부장판사 한창훈)는 29일 유씨와 김씨가 전 소속사인 S사의 채권자들을 상대로 낸 공탁금출급청구권 확인 소송 항소심에서 1심과 마찬가지로 원고 패소 판결했다.


앞서 유씨 등은 지난 2005년 3월 연예기획사인 S사와 전속계약을 체결했지만 S사가 2010년 채권을 가압류 당했다. 이들은 ‘무한도전’, ‘비타민’ 등 유명 방송프로그램에 출연하고도 각각 6억여원과 9600여만원의 출연료를 받지 못했다.

그러나 S사는 지난 2010년 6월 채권자들에게 이들의 출연료를 포함한 채권을 모두 넘겼다. 이에 유씨 등은 같은해 10월 각 방송사들에게 S사와의 전속계약 해지를 알리면서 출연료를 지급해 달라고 했다. 그러나 방송사들은 “진정한 채권자가 누구인지 불확실하다”며 법원에 미지급된 출연료 등을 공탁했다.

그러자 유씨 등은 “S사는 대리인 내지 보관자의 지위에서 출연료를 지급받은 것에 불과하다”며 “연예인의 방송출연 계약은 도급계약의 일종으로, 원사업자인 S사로부터 지급받아야할 출연료를 지급받지 못했기 때문에 방송사들은 출연료를 직접 지급할 의무가 있다”며 2012년 9월 소송을 냈다.

1심은 “제출된 증거만으로는 유씨 등이 직접 방송사와 프로그램 출연 계약을 체결했다고 인정하기 어렵다”며 청구를 기각했다.

항소심 재판부도 “유씨와 김씨가 직접 방송사와 출연 계약을 맺었다고 인정할 증거가 없다”는 이유로 원고 패소 판결했다.

김경희 기자 [e-mail]

Hasil (Inggris) 1:

The main service menu open 0 article scrap shareYoo jae-Seok "organisation received a runaway fuel not broke" appeals to the depth of the upshotJoongAng Ilbo 2016.09.30 01:29FacebookTwitterCacao flickMorePrint resizableMr. Yoo Jae-Seok of broadcasters [central picture] Broadcaster yoo jae-Seok (44) and Mr. Kim Yong (48), Mr. "I have not paid the exodus saga fuel belonging" and the former Director of the creditors belonging to the appellate case against centrifugal as the upshot.The Seoul High Court Civil 22 (presiding judge, one Chang-Hoon) Kim Yu and the 29th I came up against the creditors of the depository sign belonging to S Fri 1 appellate litigation, verify the exodus-class claims, and as the complainant had ruled.Yu, etc over the last ahead of the March 2005 S gifts and exclusive entertainment signed a contract but the planning sign S saga 2010 bonds is foreclosures. These are the ' infinite challenge ', famous for its broadcasting program, such as the ' vitamins ' appeared in each of the six billion won and won did not receive fuel for the 9600.However, the last living June 2010 S creditors of these runaway turned all the bonds, including fuel. On October of the same year, Yu, etc to each broadcasters the exclusive contract with the revocation, the S will be informed to the exodus had paid for fuel. But broadcasters are "who is the real lender is uncertain" and the Court was unpaid, such as exodus fuel depository.Then the Yu, etc "from exodus to live agent or storage S party received payments only to fuel" and "celebrity's broadcast appearances as some sort of agreement, contracts, contractors won S, which should be paid from runaway fuel operators paid not because broadcasters are obliged to pay directly to fuel an exodus," and ended the lawsuit in September 2012.1 planted "evidence alone, such as the Yu submitted directly to broadcasters and program, it is difficult to acknowledge that an agreement appeared" and dismissed the claim.The appellate court also appeared in the Yu and Kim directly admit there is no evidence it has secured a contract with a broadcaster "because the plaintiff had ruled.Kim, Kyung-Hee reporter [e-mail]

Hasil (Inggris) 2:

Open Menu key services 0 articles Share scrap

Yoo, "the agency fettuccine not get the salary difference" also lost appeals
JoongAng Ilbo 09.30.2016 01:29
Facebook
Twitter
KakaoTalk
More
font sizing

broadcaster, Mr. Yoo [Center Photo]


broadcaster Yoo (44), who and he said gimyongman (48), who is "changed the salary before the agency did not pay," he Paso as centrifugation in a lawsuit appeals filed against the creditors of the former agency.

Seoul High Court civil 22 parts (Presiding judge hanchanghun) is 29 days Yu and Kim has ruled plaintiff loses, like the first trial in the deposit chulgeup claims confirmed case appeals filed against the former management company, S's creditors


, including prior Yu is but signed a March 2005 entertainment agency, S Inc. exclusive contract S Saga 2010 the bonds were seizure. They 'Infinite Challenge', 'vitamins' and did not receive a salary of more than 6 billion won also appeared in the famous program each and 96 million won.

But S buy all the bonds, including their salary to the creditors last June 2010 handed. In Yu et al to each broadcaster May 10 the same year, informing the termination of an exclusive contract with the S Company was asked to pay a salary. However, broadcasters said, "It is uncertain whether the real creditors who" were deposited like an unpaid appearance fees to the court.

Then Yu et al., "Is merely the payment of the salary in the position's S live agents to keep" and "broadcast debut of Celebrity the contract is obliged to pay a kind of contract agreement, because it could not pay the salary to be paid from the original provider of S captured broadcasters are directly pay in, "he issued a September 2012 lawsuit.

1 planted" only submitted evidence Yu such as the "dismissed the charges said. directly to broadcasters and it is difficult to admit that they have entered into a program starring contract

appeals Chamber also" had no evidence to admit and Yoo and Kim signed a broadcaster and appeared contracts directly "ruled two euros plaintiff lost.

Kyung Hee reporter [e-mail]