beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The grounds for this part of the basic facts are as stated in the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in paragraph (1) and 2, 11 to 5, 1). Thus, this part of the basic facts are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In the instant service contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the full amount of the service cost stipulated in the instant service contract where the Defendant entered into a contract with a third party for the design service for the instant project (Article 13(1)). Nevertheless, the Defendant entered into a design contract with F Co., Ltd. on or around April 2018, which was after the conclusion of the instant service contract, with F Co., Ltd., for the construction design of the instant project, as acknowledged earlier. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 1.2 billion to the Plaintiff according to the instant service contract, barring special circumstances.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant service contract is invalid because it is “a contract to become a partner, other than the matters stipulated in the budget,” which is stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act and the Enforcement Rule of the Housing Act, without a resolution at the general meeting’s meeting. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot file a claim against the Defendant pursuant to the instant service contract. 2) In addition to the matters stipulated in the instant service contract, the Plaintiff’s provision that a decision shall be made through a resolution at the general meeting on the contract to become a partner may also be deemed as limiting the power of representation of the head of the Defendant association. However, the Plaintiff concluded the service contract with the Defendant and concluded the instant service contract with the Defendant under the condition that he knew or could have known the restriction on the power of representation. Thus,
3 Even if the instant service contract is valid, the instant service contract is valid.