(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.17 2014가합39119

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.17 2014가합39119

용역비

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 76,424,548 as well as 6% per annum from May 5, 2014 to May 17, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a travel business in Thailand with the trade name of “D,” and the Defendant is a company that operates a travel business overseas and a travel agency business overseas, and the Intervenor is a person who operates a travel agency business in Seoul with the trade name of “E.”

B. 1) An event held in Thailand covering F’s officers, employees, and families (e.g., entering into a contract between the Intervenor and the Defendant: 1,500 persons, and the travel period on March 16, 2014; or

3. 22. 22. hereinafter “instant event”

A) On September 25, 2013, the Defendant in charge of the instant event conducted a bid to select a travel agent to be in charge of the local event, and as a result, the Intervenor was selected. (ii) The Defendant and the Intervenor entered into a contract for the business and the distribution agency on March 12, 2014 through a local answer agency. The content of the contract was that the Intervenor performed the business and the distribution agency on March 12, 2014 in relation to the instant event, such as the transportation agency and accommodation, etc., and carried out the business and the distribution agency on behalf of the Intervenor, and the Defendant paid the service fee to the Intervenor in return for the payment of the service fee, the service fee of USD 108,00,000, and the balance was paid after the exercise.

(3) The Intervenor again received 108,000 dollars and 16 million Won from the Defendant and paid 80,000,000 Won to the Plaintiff. The Intervenor planned to visit the shopping center and the rest area where the Plaintiff was provided with information on the event by the Intervenor, and planned to visit the shopping center and the rest area where the Plaintiff was provided with information on the event by the Intervenor, and received a bus necessary for the event of this case from the shopping center.

However, the defendant requested for the estimation of so-called so-called shopping (no-shoping) without visiting the shopping center at the time of the above bidding, so the shopping center after the commencement of the instant event.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2018.12.07 2017구합79394

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.09 2019가단5196909

-대전지방법원 2018.05.24 2017구합106564

-서울서부지방법원 2019.01.17 2017가합1974

-대전지방법원 2016.12.21 2016가단208652