계약해지무효확인 등
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part demanding nullification of termination of a contract and the amount ordered to be additionally paid under the following sub-paragraph (b).
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following facts: Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 20, Eul evidence 31, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 23, Eul evidence 23 and testimony of the first instance court witness D.
1) The progress of the instant project is as follows: M&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M&CS”).
(2) On August 7, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff, on August 7, 2008, planned a new construction project on the ground (hereinafter “the instant construction project”) and 18 lots of land (hereinafter “the instant construction project”); and (b) the Plaintiff, on August 7, 2008, called the instant construction project.
(2) For the implementation of the project, the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”).
2) The fund of this case shall be the fund of this case, which is set forth in paragraph 2 of the same Article.
(2) The Bank of Korea, the trustee company of the instant fund, and Dongyang Asset Management Co., Ltd., the asset management company of the instant fund (hereinafter “Dongyang Asset Management”).
B) Between the Bank and the Bank of Korea, the Bank of Korea entered into a loan agreement with the Bank to obtain a loan of KRW 75,000,000,000 from the investment assets of the Fund. (2) The Bank of Korea applied for rehabilitation procedures on April 30, 2010, and the Bank of Korea did not properly proceed with the instant project due to the occurrence of circumstances such as the default of interest on the said loan.
Accordingly, on August 31, 2012, the Industrial Bank of Korea and Dongyang Asset Management, etc. established the defendant as a special purpose corporation with the aim of implementing the project of this case, and entrusted the defendant with the execution of the project of this case.
3) The Defendant, as a project executor of the instant project, is a mobilization construction industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ mobilization construction industry”).
B) The instant construction project was carried out with the contractor. B. The instant service contract was concluded under Article 1 of the instant service contract (the purpose of the instant service contract is to provide the Plaintiff with services for business management regarding the instant project promoted by the Defendant.