거래대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,748,389 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from February 2, 2018 to October 11, 2018, and the following.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agency contract with the Plaintiff to recruit and manage part of the franchise stores and provide ancillary services, which the Defendant performed for the provision of VN services (hereinafter “instant agency contract”), and around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant in relation to the said agency contract.
B. The Plaintiff received fees based on the monthly performance from the Defendant under the instant agency contract. The Plaintiff did not receive the Plaintiff’s total of KRW 165,120 on December 2015, KRW 556,50 on January 2016, KRW 1,727,182 on February 1, 2016, KRW 1,493,258 on March 1, 2016, KRW 848,814 on June 8, 2017, KRW 1,451,90 on July 1, 2017, KRW 1,625,590 on August 1, 201, KRW 200 on September 2, 200, KRW 36,381 on August 36, 2017, KRW 3818, KRW 1987, KRW 168,888, etc. on August 3, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 and 3
2. Determination as to the claim
A. Since there is no dispute between the parties to the portion of the above fee and the payment obligation equivalent to the total of KRW 16,748,389, the defendant is obligated to pay the above money to the plaintiff.
B. (1) The above 20 million won of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a security deposit to secure the Defendant’s damages due to the Plaintiff’s breach of contract or tort pursuant to Article 4 of the instant agency contract. Since the instant agency contract was terminated by the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint as the Defendant’s breach of contract, the Defendant is obligated to return the said money to the Plaintiff.
(2) It is recognized that the instant agency contract contains a clause setting up security (Article 4) and that there was no Plaintiff’s provision of security based on the said provision.
However, the plaintiff asserts that the agency contract of this case was terminated by delivery of a copy of complaint, although there is no dispute between the parties or when adding the purport of the entire argument to the statement No. 5 (including the paper number).