용역비 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion as stated in Paragraph 2 below, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The substance of the transfer contract of this case asserted by the Plaintiff is that the Defendant acquired the shares and management rights of the Plaintiff and carries out the golf course development project in the name of C.
Therefore, even if the title of the acquisition work for the golf course development project, such as environmental impact assessment, authorization of implementation plan, approval of project plan, etc., is formally C after the conclusion of the instant transfer contract, the Defendant ought to take the lead in the above acquisition work, and the Defendant is also the actual subject of the obligation to pay expenses incurred in relation to the above acquisition of authorization and permission, such as the obligation to pay service fees under the instant service contract.
B. Each statement in the certificate of evidence Nos. 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 24 (including paper numbers) can not be deemed to have been directly borne by the Defendant, not the party to the instant contract, upon the conclusion of the instant transfer contract, by the conclusion of the instant transfer contract. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Rather, Article 6 Subparag. 6 of the Assignment Contract of this case provides that the transferee shall succeed to, or destroy the instant service contract after undergoing an inspection on the instant service contract by the transferee. By December 2009, the transferee failed to conduct the actual inspection due to the Plaintiff’s failure to receive a business report on the instant service contract from the G&WD, and thereafter, the Plaintiff entered into the termination of the instant service contract. Thus, the Defendant is not liable to pay the service price pursuant to the instant service contract.
Therefore, it is true.