손해배상(기)
The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B were the Plaintiff and the Defendant of the Seoul Western District Court case No. 2019Na 242938 filed against Defendant B in relation to the Plaintiff’s business of constructing a tourist hotel in Jeju E (hereinafter “instant business”) and the Seoul Western District Court No. 2019Na 38493 (hereinafter “the instant case”).
Defendant C was entrusted by Defendant B with affairs such as the review of disaster impact assessment in relation to the instant project, and Defendant D was a witness of the preceding case, and Defendant Gangnam-gu was a supervisory body of F Co., Ltd., to which Defendant D belongs (hereinafter “F architect”).
B. On February 6, 2017, in relation to the instant business, the Plaintiff concluded a design service contract with Defendant B and paid KRW 400 million for down payment. On February 6, 2017, the Plaintiff rescinded or cancelled the said contract for the following purposes:
Claimant, the above defendant filed a lawsuit against the above defendant seeking the return of KRW 80 million to the original state (or unjust gains) and the payment of KRW 100 million to the damages incurred due to nonperformance of obligations.
In violation of the design service contract, the plaintiff could no longer proceed with the project on April 10, 2017 when the urban planning ordinance that changes part of the project site to the riverside scenic zone was announced on the wind that the construction design work is transferred to the F architect office without the plaintiff's approval, and the construction design work is transferred to the F architect office and discarded it, and no work is performed.
The Plaintiff rescinded the design service contract by serving the complaint of the preceding case on the grounds of the Defendant B’s breach of contract.
In addition, since the representative of Korea F architect office is an unqualified person who is not an architect, it is not an architect, and thus, Defendant B’s entrustment of design is null and void as an act of lending a name in violation of the construction law, and the plaintiff is unaware of such entrustment.