beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 13, 2014 to November 11, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. On January 20, 2014, the Defendant entered into a technical service contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant on April 17, 2014, with respect to the settlement of the construction volume of the said blasting construction work with the Defendant, with respect to the first phase C development project in the 1st phase three projects located in Newannam-gun, Seoul-gun. (2) The Plaintiff entered into the said technical service contract (hereinafter “instant contract”).
Contract amount: 2 million won performance amount of KRW 1.5 million at the time of settlement at the original ordering office: 1.6% performance amount of KRW 63 million at the time of settlement at the original ordering office: An advance payment of KRW 2 million from April 23, 2014 to settlement: The fact that there is no dispute over KRW 2 million at the time of settlement from April 23, 2014; A statement on the evidence No. 1
B. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was conducted on April 24, 2014 according to the instant contract, and the amount of earth and sand executed by the Defendant to the Defendant on April 30, 2014 was deemed to be KRW 132,591,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 under the instant contract, which was the Defendant’s place of order, was additionally paid to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 12,80,000,000,000,000,000,00
C. 1) Determination 1) The part of the starting fee of KRW 2 million is the Defendant’s actual survey cost, and the Plaintiff’s survey was conducted on April 24, 2014 on the spot of the instant project, since there is no dispute between the parties, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the starting fee of KRW 2 million equivalent to the survey cost (the Defendant asserts that the instant contract was cancelled because it was concluded by deception that the Plaintiff is qualified as the Plaintiff’s consultant and that there was a large number of consulting successful cases. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant contract was concluded by the Plaintiff’s deception, and the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.
(2) The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is sufficient to support the Defendant.