The Defendant is obligated to pay the Intervenor the service price in accordance with the instant service contract.

It is reasonable to view that the Defendant, to the Intervenor, was obligated to pay the service price in accordance with the instant service contract, and the due date also arrives.

Article 43 of the National Tax Collection Act

2018Na22115 Collection Funds

○ ○

○ ○

December 14, 2018

January 18, 2019

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant, including the costs of supplementary participation.

Cheong-gu and purport of appeal

1. Purport of claim

Defendant KRW 0,000,000,000 for the Plaintiff and the next day after the delivery of the instant complaint to the Plaintiff.

The rate of 15% per annum shall be paid from the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court's ruling are as follows: (a) the part of the first instance court's ruling is amended by the second instance court's ruling;

2. Paragraph 3 is amended in the same manner as the judgment of the court of first instance, and the 'additional judgment of the court of first instance' is added.

Since the reasoning is the same as that stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is cited as it is.

section 3.

2. Parts of correction of the trial;

(a) To revise "(c)" in Part 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "paragraph(d)", and revise "the amount of damage shall be deducted or reduced" in Part 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "the amount of damage shall be deducted or reduced, or the amount of the above amount of damage shall be the amount of automatic claim, and the amount of service which the supplementary intervenor has against the defendant shall be offset as the amount of passive claim."

B. The part of the first to sixth-party 1 in the judgment of the court of first instance (at least 1 to 6, there is no evidence) are as follows.

It shall be revised as above, and shall delete the judgment of the court of first instance from 12th (B) to 14th (B).).

“Chump, Gap’s evidence 15, 18-1 through 3, 20-5, 23 through 21

According to each description of No. 57-130, testimony of witness stand-ho, and the whole purport of pleading, the following:

(1)As the facts or judgments mentioned in paragraphs (1) through (8) are recognized, the Intervenor is in accordance with the instant service contract.

It is reasonable to see that services related to the designation of a rearrangement zone, authorization for establishment, and authorization for project implementation were performed, and it is insufficient to reverse the above recognition due to the descriptions of the evidence of Nos. 2, 5 through 7, and 9 through 13, and there is no other counter-proof, the defendant's assertion is without merit."

The following parts shall be inserted between the 10th page 19 and 20:

According to the instant service contract, the supplementary intervenor is in principle liable to the Defendant for all kinds of costs incurred in the project, such as the preparation of design drawings and specifications for the rearrangement zone designated by the supplementary intervenor, appraisal, measurement and traffic impact assessment, geological survey, environmental impact assessment, noise impact assessment, and excavation index survey (Article 14(1)).

3. Additional determination of the trial

(a) Between the 12th and 14th of the judgment of the first instance, the following additional judgments shall be inserted:

“(8) The Defendant’s assertion is that the instant service contract constitutes a contract and thus, the Intervenor is actually the assistant intervenor.

It is necessary to calculate the service cost only within the scope of the service work performed.

The former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 10416, Dec. 27, 2010)

According to Article 71, a person who entrusts a management entity specialized in improvement projects with affairs or requests consultation from a management entity specialized in improvement projects, except as otherwise provided for in this Act.

The provisions concerning delegation in the Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the mandators, unless otherwise agreed by the mandatarys.

In the event that he/she is not able to demand remuneration (Article 686(1) of the Civil Act), and in case that he/she is paid remuneration

A claim may not be made unless it has been completed, but the period of remuneration is determined, if any, that period.

may claim after the expiration of the period (Article 686(2) of the Civil Act).

In full view of the following (1) through (4), it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s Intervenor’s obligation to pay the 1 or 4th service payment pursuant to the instant service contract to the Intervenor has occurred and the due date has arrived. As such, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

① The instant service contract is a contract under which the Defendant selects the Intervenor as a specialized management contractor for the instant rearrangement project, and pays service costs to the Intervenor. The Intervenor is an agent for the maintenance project specialized management services, namely, providing support for the designation of a rearrangement zone, providing consent for the establishment of an association and obtaining consent for an improvement project, providing support for the business activities on the application for authorization for establishment of an association, providing support for the designation of a designer and contractor, conducting the business affairs on the application for authorization for a project implementation, performing the business affairs on the establishment of a management and disposal plan, examining design documents, and examining the details of construction cost change. The services that the Intervenor agreed to perform by the assistant intervenor are mostly a juristic act under public law (e.g., applying for authorization for establishment, applying for authorization for project implementation, and establishment of a management and disposal plan) on behalf of the Defendant pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and the timing and contents of each specific legal act shall be in accordance with the Defendant’s intent, not the Intervenor’s consent, but the instant service contract is reasonable to be deemed as a delegation agreement.

2. The supplementary intervenor may claim against the defendant in installments the service cost on nine occasions when the period of each payment arrives pursuant to Article 8 of the service contract of this case, and the defendant shall immediately pay the amount when the supplementary intervenor claims the service cost of the supplementary intervenor.

③ After the Defendant and the Intervenor entered into the instant first contract on April 28, 2009, on November 20, 2009, the designation of the rearrangement zone was publicly announced with respect to the instant project zone. On September 10, 2010, the authorization was completed for the establishment of the Defendant, and the payment period for the first, second, and third services has already ended at the time of entering into the instant service contract on March 16, 2011. As such, regardless of whether the Intervenor’s designation of the rearrangement zone and the authorization for the establishment of the association, the Defendant’s obligation to pay the first, second, and third services payment for the Intervenor was incurred.

④ The Intervenor filed an application for authorization to implement the instant service contract on December 22, 2014, upon performing the duties of filing an application for authorization to implement the project, and the Defendant received authorization to implement the project from the head of the Gu of A Metropolitan City on October 2, 2015.

(b) inserting the following additional judgments following the 14th judgment of the first instance.

C. Whether the instant service contract was modified (illegally)

The Defendant’s assertion concluded a modified contract between the Intervenor and the Intervenor around August 30, 2014 to reduce the amount to be paid at the time of application for authorization for project implementation from KRW 00,000 to KRW 00,000,000, among the service costs under the instant service contract. Thus, the Defendant’s payment to the Intervenor at the time of application for authorization for project implementation is KRW 00

In light of the following: (a) it is insufficient to recognize that the contract was entered into for the amendment of the instant service contract with the purport of reducing the service cost to be paid to the Intervenor at the time of application for authorization for the implementation of the project, from KRW 00,000 to KRW 00,000,000, among the Defendant and the Intervenor solely based on the statement in subparagraph 1-1 of the evidence No. 1, and witness AA of the first instance trial; and (b) there is no

① According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 32 and 1-1 of evidence Nos. 32 and 1-1, the draft of the service contract (revision) with the content of reducing the service cost to be paid to the supplementary intervenor from KRW 00 million upon application for project implementation authorization (no signature or seal of the supplementary intervenor and the defendant’s representative is written) and the contract has not been prepared actually. On April 15, 2016, the supplementary intervenor filed a claim for the unpaid service payment on the premise that the service cost to be paid to the defendant at the time of application for project implementation authorization is KRW 00,000,000, and it is recognized that the defendant did not raise any objection.

② As seen earlier, the validity of the instant service agreement is effective simultaneously with the signature and seal of both the Defendant and the Intervenor (Article 17(1) of the instant service agreement). Therefore, even when amending the instant service agreement, both parties’ signature and seal should be deemed necessary.

(c) inserting the following additional judgments following the 8th instance judgment of the first instance court:

(e)whether the damages for delay are limited (unlawful)

1) The defendant's assertion

Since it is reasonable for the defendant, who is the debtor, to object to the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation, until the judgment of the trial court is rendered, the interest rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter referred to as the "Litigation Promotion Act") should apply from the date following the judgment of the trial court is rendered.

2) Legal principles

The phrase “case where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to dispute over the existence or scope of an obligation” under Article 3(2) of the Litigation Promotion Act refers to the case where there is a reasonable ground for the obligor’s argument as to whether the obligation exists or not, and thus, it is a matter pertaining to the fact-finding and its evaluation by the court concerning the relevant case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da39092, Nov. 25, 2005). However, in a case where the appellate court maintains the claim amount cited by the first instance court as it is, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence or scope of an obligation for the amount cited in the appellate proceeding (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da50509, Apr. 26, 2013).

3) Determination

In the case of this case, the first instance court accepted the plaintiff's claim, maintained the claim amount cited by the first instance court, and there are no special circumstances suggesting that it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation to perform as to the amount quoted by the first instance court in the appellate trial proceedings. Accordingly, the defendant's argument is without merit."

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.