수수료 지급 청구
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended by this court, is modified as follows.
1. The reasons for this part of this Court’s reasoning are as follows, and it is identical to the second instance judgment’s statement of “1. Basic Facts” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
▣ 제3쪽 5, 6행의 “체결하였다.”를 “체결하고 출력 5,200KW의 니가타사 가스터빈 발전기 4대를 공급하였다.”로 고침
2. The grounds for this part of the parties’ assertion are as stated in the part on “2. Party’s assertion” as of the third party of the judgment of the first instance, except in the following cases. Thus, this part is quoted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
▣ 제3쪽 14행의 “피고는”부터 17행의 "있다."까지를 아래와 같이 고침 『피고는 원고에게 수수료 2,399,399,101원[이 사건 대리점계약 중 CASE 1에 해당하는 기본수수료율 7%로 계산한 기본수수료 10억 1,500만 원(= 145억 원 × 7%) 인센티브수수료 1,384,399,101원{= (145억 원 - 9,885,336,330원) × 30%}]과 이에 대한 부가가치세 239,939,910원(= 2,399,399,101원 × 0.1)의 합계 2,639,339,011원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다.』 ▣ 제3쪽 19행의 “주식회사 삼성테크윈(이하 ‘삼성테크윈’이라 한다)"을 "삼성테크윈 주식회사 이후 ’한화테크윈 주식회사‘로 상호가 변경되었다.
hereinafter referred to as the "Tye" is the "Tye" Commission.
"Romeat"
3. Determination
A. Whether the instant agency contract is invalid or not, as a result of the Gap’s statement Nos. 2, 3, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 25 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the response of the order issued by the director of the Incheon District Tax Office to submit tax information on August 11, 2017 to the director of the Incheon Tax Office of this Court, the result of the inquiry by the court on June 2, 2017, the fact inquiry by the witness E of the first instance trial, and the following circumstances revealed in full view of the entire purport of the pleadings in the testimony by the witness E of the first instance trial, the instant agency contract constitutes a juristic act contrary to social order as stipulated in