beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Plaintiff’s assertion
A. On December 20, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded an agency contract with the Defendant, who is the chairperson of the Local Housing Association Establishment Promotion Committee, to vicariously perform the duties of the said Promotion Committee. From January 6, 2016 to April 2016, the Plaintiff employed C and other employees to perform the duties of demanding a letter of consent to land use. However, the Plaintiff waived agency services due to the Defendant’s unfair contract coercion, etc.
B. The plaintiff agreed to collect fees of KRW 7 million per household to 650 households when the project is implemented due to the establishment of the defendant and the head of the tea housing association. However, as long as the plaintiff's business is suspended as above, the defendant is liable to pay the money that the plaintiff has spent as shown in the attached Form.
Judgment
A. On December 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) concluded an agency contract with E, the representative director of D Co., Ltd., and performed the business; (b) terminated the said contract due to the financial problem of D Co., Ltd.; and (c) concluded that there was no agency contract between the Plaintiff and E.
B. Therefore, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the agency agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant is merely an oral agreement. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the agency agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was concluded.
C. Rather, according to the statement No. 1 and the witness C’s testimony alleged that the Plaintiff was his own employee who performed the above service, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant entered into an agency contract with E, the representative director of the D Co., Ltd., according to the purport of the above evidence and the whole pleadings, and it appears that the Plaintiff was partly involved in the process of performing the above contract.
Under a different premise, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
The plaintiff's claim.