용역비
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following addition.
2. Additional determination
A. Defendant’s assertion 1) In the sense of confirming that the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased 21 cases of the sales contract for which the entire contract deposit has not been paid, excluding those eligible for the payment of the sales contract for which the payment of performance payment has not been met, the Plaintiff and the Defendant made a written public notice as of April 28, 2015, and made a written public notice as of April 28, 2015, that the details of the sales contract for which the payment of performance payment has not been made in the future legal objection against the performance payment. As such, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful against the above written public notice as to the contract for the payment of performance payment. 2) The Plaintiff, who mobilized 11 items of the unsold quantity in lots under the name of employees, should be excluded from the calculation of the final sales contract rate because it does not constitute the brokerage of the sales contract, and thus, it cannot be paid performance rates as it has
3) Since the Plaintiff, in violation of the good faith principle, took the same attitude as the Plaintiff did not claim the performance money, demanding the payment of the performance money, despite having paid the sale fee, is contrary to the good faith principle.B) According to the evidence No. 7, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant on April 28, 2015, according to the letter of public notice that the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant on April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff would not raise any legal objection as to the sales agency contract for the Switzerland.
The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as having been stated as “the fact,” but recognized as having been based on the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 8, namely, there was a dispute or a problem raised between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the reduction of fees related to the “entire payment” prior to the preparation of the above official document.