beta
(영문) 광주고등법원(제주) 2016.10.05 2015나1668

채무부존재확인

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the modification of the contents stated in the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On June 27, 2014, the amended part No. 14 of the 7th “Duty under the instant contract” deleted the obligation to receive advisory fees, etc. under the instant contract from 17 to 8, and the Defendant was prosecuted for the crime of interference with business as to the instant civil petition filed a civil petition with the purport that “E is proceeding with the extension of the site for the instant project of the project of the Republic of Korea on or around June 27, 2014, as “E is proceeding with the extension of the site for the instant project of the Republic of Korea without the consent of the Defendant, who is the landowner.”

Even if the above civil petition filing is illegal and unfair, it is deemed that Article 6 of the contract of this case is violated.

Even if Article 6 of the contract of this case provides an incidental duty, rather than the main content of the contract of this case, and it is in a quid pro quo relationship with the payment of advisory fees, etc. as the main content of the contract of this case. Since the transfer of stocks and bonds of this case and the resignation of the representative director have been fully performed, it is not possible to cancel or terminate the contract of this case on the ground of the violation of Article 6 of the contract of this case based on the above civil petition filing, and there is no ground to reduce advisory fees

However, aside from claiming damages for these reasons, it seems that there is a separate lawsuit claiming damages between E and the defendant relating to the filing of the above civil petition, and in light of this, the plaintiffs' claim for damages as a claim for damages.