logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.07.12 2016나10800
용역대금반환등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. On August 18, 2013, the Plaintiff, an employee of the joint office of the Plaintiff’s assertion, was introduced from the Defendant to C (hereinafter “C”) at a rice station located in Ulsan for the Defendant’s operation. Around August 18, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to extend the period of stay and apply for permanent sovereignty (hereinafter “instant business”).

At the time, there is difficulty in communication with C, and the defendant made a series of copies and translations related to the instant work, and the plaintiff paid KRW 500,000 to the defendant on the same day.

However, since the defendant did not provide all copies and translations after receiving the above service costs, the above service costs must be refunded to the plaintiff.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 6, 8, 11, and 12 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, it is recognized that the Plaintiff, introduced from around July 2013 to the Defendant, provided consultation on the application for extension of the period of stay, application for permanent sovereignty, etc. against Vietnames, or provided services related thereto, and agreed to act as an agent upon introduction in August 18, 2013, and that the Defendant received KRW 500,000 from the Plaintiff on the same day.

However, in the instant case where the Defendant asserted that C et al. introduced to the Plaintiff only gave the Plaintiff money with the indication of audit and inspection, it is difficult to acknowledge the fact that an agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to receive KRW 500,000 from the Plaintiff on the service cost giving the Plaintiff access and translation related to the instant work, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow