beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.10.23 2015가합102348

용역비

Text

1. The plaintiff A, the defendant agricultural company's life and theter company 30,250,000 won, and the defendant C shall be 30,000,000 won and each of the above.

Reasons

1. On December 31, 2012, Plaintiff A entered into a technical service contract with Defendant Incorporated Agricultural Company’s life and Korea Incorporated Agricultural Company (hereinafter “Defendant Incorporated Agricultural Company’s life”) with a service cost of KRW 50 million (excluding value-added tax) in order to review factors influencing disasters arising from D construction works. Although Defendant Incorporated Agricultural Company’s life did not receive KRW 30,250,000 out of the service cost, it was not paid by Defendant Incorporated Agricultural Company’s life. On August 11, 2014, Defendant C entered into each of the technical services contracts with KRW 15,00,000 for the review of factors influencing disasters arising from E apartment new construction and F construction projects, and even though implementation under each of the above contracts was performed, the aforementioned Defendants asserted that they failed to receive KRW 30,000,000 in total from Defendant C without being present at the due date for pleading and submission of the written reply pursuant to Article 15(1)5(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 1, 2015 to the date of delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the date of full payment, with respect to the amount of KRW 30,250,000,000,000,000, and each of the above amounts.

2. Determination as to the plaintiff B's claim

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 9-2, 3, and 4 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim and the whole arguments, it is recognized that plaintiff B entered into each service contract with the defendant Epickion as listed in the following table, and fulfilled each of the above contracts, and the plaintiff B was repaid KRW 3,00,000 out of the service price under the service contract set forth in No. 1 of the table below.

Contents of services on the date of concluding a contract.