(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.10.15 2020나2006021

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) 서울고등법원 2020.10.15 2020나2006021

용역비

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended by the appellate court is dismissed.

3. Filing an appeal;

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of “1. Basic Facts” in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the corresponding part among the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

“5,000,000,000 won” in the second half of the judgment of the first instance shall be “5,000,000 won” and “53,00,000,000 won” in the second half below shall be added “1,50,000 won in total” and “1,50,000 won in value-added tax (excluding value-added tax).

"20,000,000 won when the sale of the land subject to service is completed" shall be deemed "200,000,000 won when the total sale of the land subject to service is completed" in the third third part of the judgment of the first instance.

Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance [based on recognition] shall be deemed as "Evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 7-1".

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the instant service contract was concluded by its own effort to pay KRW 1.5 billion to the Plaintiff in return for the formation of the sales contract for D land. The Defendant’s remaining land purchase-related business is not the Plaintiff’s business under the instant service contract, but the Plaintiff’s court at the first instance court claimed that the remaining land purchase-related business was included in the Plaintiff’s business, and that the Plaintiff performed all of its business. However, on May 6, 2020, the Plaintiff changed its assertion to the effect that the remaining land purchase-related business was not included in the Plaintiff’s business.

The plaintiff's service under the instant service contract has already been completed, and the payment period for remuneration under the instant service contract has expired. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should pay the money and delay damages as stated in the claim to the plaintiff.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is not limited to the Plaintiff’s service duties under the instant service contract, but to the land necessary for the instant project.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-부산고등법원 2020.10.22 2019나57001

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.09 2018나68140

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.16 2015나37985

-서울고등법원 2020.11.26.선고 2020나2005769 판결

-부산고등법원 2018.05.09 2017나55254