logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.08.22 2018가단79786
기타(금전)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On May 2, 2017, the original Defendant entered into a consulting service agreement (hereinafter “instant service agreement”) with the Plaintiff to consult on the sale and purchase of the area of 50,000,000 square meters in Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, and to pay KRW 50,00,000 (including value added tax) to the Defendant, upon completion of the sale and purchase as the commission, until July 15, 2017.

In accordance with the instant service contract, on May 31, 2017, a sales contract was concluded between the owner and the Defendant with respect to the said land. On June 1, 2017, the Defendant received a tax invoice from the Plaintiff and paid KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

After that, on September 14, 2017, the Defendant deposited KRW 50,000,000 for the remainder of the fee (hereinafter “instant fee”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, and 5 evidence and Eul 1, 2, and 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 50,00,000,00,000, which is the day following the date of the payment of the instant fee, to August 18, 2017, calculated by the Defendant, at the rate of 5% per annum, for delay damages of KRW 232,877, and for delay damages of KRW 534,247, a total of KRW 767,124, out of the deposit received by the Plaintiff, from July 16, 2017, to August 18, 2017, which is the date of service of the original original copy of the instant payment order, and from the next day to September 13, 2017, for delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum for the said money. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim that KRW 767,124,00,

As to this, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff did not issue a business registration certificate that can issue a tax invoice properly and later paid the fee of this case under the condition that the tax invoice is issued, the defendant cannot be held liable for delay.

B. Whether the Defendant is liable for delay, the fact that the instant service contract entered into an agreement to pay service fees, including value-added tax, and the Defendant received a tax invoice from the Plaintiff and the primary fee.

arrow