beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.06.02 2015가합104375

추심금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 278,082,192 with interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 27, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1.For the purpose of Article 1 of the Basic Facts, this Convention is aimed at promoting the promotion of mutual benefit between the Defendant and the KT’s business.

Article 2. Details of cooperative relations under this Convention are as follows:

1) U-APT construction consulting 2) basic design 3 U-APT construction for U-APT construction

A. On October 2, 2008, the Defendant entered into an agreement on business partnership with the KT Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) including the following matters:

Article 2 (Establishment of the Grounds and Terms in the Convention) ① U-APT means the system such as the overall home network, the overall public facilities, the overall situation of integration of the complex management center, the overall area of communications, etc. that can support the defendant's apartment life.

(2) The basic design shall be based on U-ATPP basic design drawings and details according to project approval performed in the case from 2007 to 2009.

Article 5 (Succession to the Convention) (1) In principle, the Defendant succeeds to the “U-APT Construction Convention” which was concluded with the case to the Mossius in accordance with the instant agreement, and the Mosius shall succeed to the rights and obligations of the cases, which are the flag agreement companies.

(2) The amount of claims for expenses incurred from 2007, which is a flag agreement company following the succession of the existing agreement, until now shall be determined by the consultation between the defendant and the case, and the amount shall not exceed 690,000,000 won, and the head of the Mosper shall succeed to the amount of claims for the execution expenses of the case.

(3) The defendant shall pay the amount of the succeeded execution cost claim in case where the contract for the “U-APT construction project” is not entered into with another business operator without good cause, or the contract is concluded with another business operator, or where the contract of this case is terminated.

However, if the defendant concludes the above contract in accordance with the Convention, it shall be deemed that the claim for the execution expenses succeeded to at the expense of the Masferferer shall be extinguished.

B. The Defendant is a stock company on October 29, 2010.