공사대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Defendant for permission for development of solar power facilities and paid KRW 45 million to the Defendant as down payment. However, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was obligated to return the down payment to the Plaintiff since the Defendant did not perform duties for obtaining permission for development activities as a service company. Thus, according to the statement in the evidence No. 1, the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a service contract related to the permission for civil engineering works of solar power facilities in Gangseo-si, Gangnam-si, and the F Ilwon-si (hereinafter “instant contract”) on January 8, 2018, and the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 45 million to the Defendant as down payment is deemed to have been led by the Defendant.
However, the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion seems to be premised on the Defendant’s rescission of the instant contract according to the fact that the Defendant did not perform his/her obligation under the instant contract. In light of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 14 (Partial Nos. 1 and 3 omitted), it is insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s non-performance of obligation solely by the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 3. There is no other evidence to
However, in light of the specific contents of the instant contract, the legal nature of the contract is deemed to fall under a delegation contract. Each party to the delegation contract may terminate the delegation contract at any time without any justifiable reason pursuant to Article 689(1) of the Civil Act. Even in cases where a party expressed his/her intent to terminate the delegation contract on the ground of nonperformance of obligation but in fact fails to meet the requirements for termination of the contract on the ground of nonperformance of obligation, the effect of termination as a voluntary termination under Article 689(1) of the Civil Act is recognized, barring any special circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da71411, Dec. 23, 2015). However, even in such cases, remuneration is to be paid according to the ratio of duties already managed by the mandatory (Article 686(3) of the Civil Act). The Plaintiff and the Defendant filed an application for