약정금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 255,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from May 1, 2014 to January 12, 2018.
1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, the defendant entered into an advisory contract with the purpose of manufacturing, wholesale and retail of clothing, etc., as well as export and import business; the plaintiff was working as the representative director of the defendant and resigned on January 20, 2012; the plaintiff was on April 23, 2012 with the defendant (at the time representative director was appointed on January 20, 2012), "the plaintiff consulted on the manufacturing and business of clothing of the defendant, and the defendant shall pay 15 million won to the plaintiff at the last day of each month as advisory fee (hereinafter "the contract of this case"); the above representative director C was retired on August 16, 2012; and the representative director C was changed in sequence, and the above representative director was paid from June 20 to E. 21, 2017, without being paid the above advisory director.
According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 250 million won (17 months from December 2012 to April 2014) plus 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from May 1, 2014 until January 12, 2018, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant also resigned from the Defendant’s representative director at the time of delistinging around 2012 by the Defendant’s parent company and KOSDAQ-listed corporation, which was the Defendant’s parent company and the Plaintiff, and the instant contract was concluded with the intent of receiving money by pretending to offer advisory services by making the Plaintiff take office as a succeeding representative director for several hundreds of years. At the time, C did not need any separate advice from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff actually provided advisory services.