logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.13 2016가합513536
계약유효존속확인 및 용역대금 청구
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,064,511,521 as well as 6% per annum from November 10, 2016 to February 13, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company with the objective of building design, supervision, etc. (1) The Plaintiff is a foundation that is established for the purpose of creating, maintaining, and managing a park cemetery for readers. (2) The Defendant is a foundation that creates and operates a “D” (9,174) which is the cause of a Dara Park Park (hereinafter “P”) on the site of a lot of 173,257 square meters outside C and 21 lots of land (hereinafter “instant site”).

B. On June 28, 2007, pursuant to the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the Minister of Construction and Transportation (i) completed the housing site development project between the Plaintiff and the Defendant prior to the conclusion of the PM service contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and (ii) had been merged with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Land and Housing Corporation”) in order to determine the size of 6,928,000 square meters in size, including the instant site, as the F Housing Site Development Promotion Act.

hereinafter referred to as “LH Corporation”).

(1) The housing site development project (hereinafter referred to as “instant housing site development project”) shall be designated as the project implementer.

(2) On October 23, 2007, when implementing the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the company asked the Defendant whether it is possible to prepare a substitute site to transfer D to the Pakistan, which is the competent administrative agency, and the implementer of the housing site development project of this case. On October 9, 2007 and November 5, 2007, the company asked the Defendant to consult with the LH Corporation, which is the implementer of the housing site development project of this case. If the substitute site is determined, the company responded to the purport that the Defendant would provide adequate administrative support for the substitute site, and on October 23, 2007, the company should consult with the relevant department of the PH Corporation, which is the implementer of the housing site development project of this case.

The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs also shall D.

arrow