(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.11.23 2017가단17767

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) 서울서부지방법원 2018.11.23 2017가단17767

용역수수료

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from March 31, 2017 to November 23, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 9, 2013, the Plaintiff and C entered into a service contract with the Defendant and the Defendant to collect KRW 300 million from the Defendant, and to secure all of the instant land outside Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and 21 lots (hereinafter “instant project site”) as the site for the construction of officetels.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant service contract”).

Defendant and 22 others obtained permission to build a building on the instant project site from Mapo-gu on August 23, 2013.

C. On October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff and C divided the service fees of KRW 300 million with the Defendant and the seller of the instant service contract into KRW 100 million, and the remainder shall be paid before the completion of the building on the instant project site at the time of the remainder payment by the seller of the instant project site, and the Plaintiff, C, E, and F shall receive the service fees in installments at the rate of 3:3:2:2.

On March 2015, the Plaintiff and C drafted two written confirmations to the effect that the Defendant and the parties to receive the service fees of the instant service contract do not comply with the said real estate purchase service contract and that the Plaintiff and C are only the Plaintiff and C, as stipulated in the instant service contract.

E. The Defendant: (a) received assistance from the Plaintiff and C in performing services, such as efforts to secure the site; (b) sent out a lot of time more likely to do so; and (c) was able to secure the instant project site at the end of the valley; and (d) newly build an officetel on the instant project site and obtained approval for use from Mapo-gu on March 31, 2017.

F. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff and C a service fee of KRW 100 million on March 13, 2015, and KRW 100 million on March 30, 2016.

G. The Plaintiff and C agreed that half of the service fees of this case received from the Plaintiff should be divided.

[Reasons for Recognition] The fact that the plaintiff is the plaintiff, the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2019.05.16 2018나2879

-서울서부지방법원 2019.05.16 2018나2367

-서울고등법원 2015.05.19 2014나40802

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.14 2014나24166

-수원지방법원 2019.01.11 2017가합26853