logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.24 2019가합1416
약정금 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendant C and D are all filed.

Reasons

1. Common factual relations;

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) is a company engaging in real estate business, etc., Defendant C is a joint representative director of the Defendant Company around 2010, and Defendant D is a person who had worked as a joint representative director of the Defendant Company’s planning office.

B. A certified judicial scrivener around June 11, 2010, the Plaintiff, as a certified judicial scrivener, provided the following services to Defendant B, and was paid KRW 20 million as the service price. However, with respect to the investment, loan, and the contingent fee for recovery of the obligation to receive the construction cost, the Plaintiff entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the premise of performance on the premise that the performance would be settled, and the other additional service cost would be determined by consultation, and performed as Defendant B’s so-called “special service charge”.

A: Defendant BF G E

C. The Plaintiff was involved in part of the B’s work in accordance with the instant service contract.

【Ground for recognition】 A without a dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 19 (including each number, if there is a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of a lawsuit against Defendant B

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) from August 2010 to July 2012, Defendant B claimed that: (b) pay the Plaintiff KRW 192 million calculated by the Plaintiff as remuneration or unjust enrichment in return for the Plaintiff’s work in Defendant B from August 2010 to July 2012; (c) pay KRW 20 million in remuneration or unjust enrichment in accordance with the instant service contract; and (d) pay KRW 60 million in consideration of the amount equivalent to 1% of the amount of 60 billion withdrawals at the south main office of H Bank South Korea branch in the instant service contract; and (e) pay KRW 50 million in remuneration for the prevention of damage to Defendant B’s compulsory auction and KRW 50 million in consideration of the provision of advice on G projects.

B. Defendant B’s claims asserted by the Plaintiff against the judgment on the main defense of Defendant B (1)

arrow