(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.01.10 2017나2043440

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 2018.01.10 2017나2043440

용역비

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 768,463,770 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from August 18, 2016 to January 10, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of building design, urban and complex planning, etc., and the Defendant is a company established for the purpose of housing construction business, etc., and the Defendant is an executor that promotes the construction of a new construction of an urban development project (hereinafter “instant project”) and a new construction of a construction of a construction of a construction of a construction of a construction of a construction of a construction of a construction of a construction of a construction of a housing complex in the Government-si B (hereinafter “instant project site”) in the

B. On December 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a design service contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant on the contract amount of KRW 6,470,00,000 (the rate at which value-added tax is exempted is 79.55%, and the rate at which value-added tax is imposed is 20.45%; separate details are as follows.).

5. [Scope of Services]

1.The scope of this service shall be as follows:

Preparation of design documents by field, by stage, of planning and planning, basic (Interim) and working design;

(b) Preparation of authorized books, such as landscape deliberation, construction deliberation, project approval, etc.;

(c) Authorization and permission business: Business concerning rental of a facility within the scope of the plaintiff's service and the obligations of a designer who proceeds during the service period;

(d) Affairs of examination of Acts and subordinate statutes, research of data, and technical review;

(e) Geological survey services;

(f) individual IT design service (excluding model know-how design and interior design);

(g) Support for traffic impact analysis and improvement plans;

H. Matters other than those mentioned above, which the Defendant requested to the Plaintiff and agreed upon by the Plaintiff and the Defendant

1. The design service cost to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is, in principle, cash settlement, and the time and amount to be paid shall be as follows in principle:

The payment rate (won) of the payment date of the division (excluding value-added tax) shall be non-high.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.04.04 2015가합204461

-수원지방법원 2018.10.25 2018가단509440

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.01.21 2014가합181

-서울고등법원 2014.12.17 2013나76941

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.18 2016가합542633