노임
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Around May 2013, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with the Defendant, who is a traffic facility and a specialized manufacturer of Do gold, with the content that the Defendant would engage in the business activities for receiving government-funded construction orders for new products (C; hereinafter “instant products”) developed by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant products”). On or around July 2013, when the Defendant entered into a government-funded construction contract on the instant products with the government office, the Plaintiff entered into a performance remuneration agreement with the Defendant that would receive 20% of the purchase price (based on the supply price) of the relevant products as the performance remuneration agreement.
(Specificly, on July 2013, the Defendant entered into a performance bonus agreement with the Chairperson D, who was delegated by the Defendant with authority from the Defendant, and on July 2013, the Defendant’s representative director E ratified the performance bonus agreement, and at that time, E promised to pay the performance bonus according to the performance bonus agreement to the Plaintiff on several occasions. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was working as the Defendant’s employee from May 2, 2013 to March 1, 2014, and as a result, the Defendant entered into four government-funded construction contracts for the instant product with the Korea Water Resources Corporation (Seoul Northern District Headquarters under its jurisdiction).
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 90,760,090,090, which is a total of 453,800,454 won (excluding value-added tax) for the supply of four procurements of the above government-funded construction contract in accordance with the performance remuneration agreement. As part of the claim, the Defendant seeks payment of KRW 30,00,000 and damages for delay.
2. In full view of the written evidence Nos. 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 14, 28, and evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2, the Plaintiff used the Defendant’s regular business order from May 2, 2013 to March 1, 2014, and conducted business activities related to the government-funded construction order for the instant product.