logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.29 2016나69781
계약금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a person engaged in marketing business, such as arranging airline routes and arranging travel visitors, in the trade name of "D".

around November 2013, the Defendant was dispatched to the Defendant’s Intervenor, a public interest corporation, and served as the Seoul Office Director operated by the Defendant’s Intervenor.

However, with respect to the above Seoul Office, the defendant used the title "Eth Seoul Office" and the title "Seoul Office of Public Interest Incorporated Association" in combination.

On March 11, 2014, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff an e-mail (A. 3,13) requesting the content of requesting the Plaintiff to visit the Korea Civil Aviation Headquarters and to make an agreement with the persons concerned. In relation to the above request, the Defendant also stated that “I wish to do so on the premise of a real theory, internal year (the year from April 2014, which is the fiscal year of Japan in E, in E, the fiscal year of Japan) and a consulting contract of the low-income office.”

On March 21, 2014, the Plaintiff arranged to visit and call the headquarters of the air service of the present E-mail requested by the above e-mail on March 11, 2014, and exercised the relevant event on March 21, 2014.

In addition, the Plaintiff visited Seoul on March 17, 2014 and carried out certain tasks with regard to the meeting held by E-mail, as other matters requested in the above e-mail.

On March 20, 2014, the Plaintiff sent the draft consulting contract (hereinafter referred to as “the draft of the instant contract”) to the Defendant by e-mail and requested review of the draft of the instant contract.

In the draft of the above contract, the contract price is the public column.

On April 15, 2014, the defendant sent e-mail to the plaintiff's employee to the effect that it is not possible to conclude a consulting contract.

[Ground of recognition] Class A through 27, Class B or 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, each of the statements or images (including those with serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and oral proceedings.

arrow