(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.08.10 2015가합37986

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 2017.08.10 2015가합37986

수수료 대금 청구

Text

1. The request for intervention by the independent party of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff and the intervenor's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a corporation that carries on a waterproof project of concrete structure, etc., and has a patent for waterproof materials and waterproof methods.

The plaintiff is operated to ensure that the defendant's waterproof materials and the method of waterproofing can be adopted against civil engineering and construction companies, and in the case of adoption, the plaintiff and the plaintiff's employees have received a certain percentage of fees.

Since July 2015, the Defendant did not pay a total of KRW 764,955,072 (hereinafter “instant fee”) to the Plaintiff, as stated in the details of the fees to be paid in attached Form (Plaintiff’s Claim).

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the instant fee and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

B. 1) The Intervenor’s assertion 1) The Intervenor is not the Plaintiff but the party entitled to seek the payment of the instant fee against the Defendant. Therefore, the Intervenor is the party to the contract regarding the instant fee, and the Intervenor is the conjunctively entitled to seek the payment of the instant fee. 2) The Plaintiff, despite being a director of the Intervenor, is a director of the Intervenor, is responsible for the Plaintiff, and was paid the Intervenor’s operating fee without title from the Defendant in collusion with D, E. In household affairs, the Plaintiff did not make a public offering with D, E, and public

Even if the plaintiff violated director's duty of loyalty, duty of prohibition of competitive business, duty of prohibition of self-transaction, business opportunity, and prohibition of misappropriation of assets, it constitutes a default or tort.

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the intervenor the amount of 100,000,000 won, which is a part of unjust enrichment or damages, and damages for delay.

2. We examine whether the application for intervention by the independent party of this case is lawful ex officio.

A. As to the motion for intervention of the independent party of this case, the parties to the contract may claim confirmation.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2015.07.07 2014가단44610

-대전지방법원공주지원 2020.10.22 2020가단20592

-대법원 2015.03.26 2014다86080

-서울남부지방법원 2018.08.29 2018가단200215

-청주지방법원 2017.07.13 2016나12695