Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Lee Yong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Kim Won-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 1, 2005

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 424,247,250 won with 5% interest per annum from March 24, 2005 to November 15, 2005, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-eight of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 482,826,750 won with an interest rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 10, and Gap evidence No. 11-1 and 2, and the testimony of non-party 2 as a whole.

A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Plaintiff”) is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, etc. semiconductor-related products, and Nonparty NONEX is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, etc. semiconductor-related products (this refers to Switzerland), the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) or the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company established for the purpose of domestic sales and services of the KONEX products, the amount equivalent to 10% of the sales amount is paid from KONEX.

B. On June 13, 2003, the Plaintiff ( Nonparty 1 entered into the following contracts with the Plaintiff’s delegation) entered into a contract with the Defendant to pay the amount equivalent to 3.5% of the sales amount from the Defendant to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”) within one month, if the sales amount was paid to KONEX as a broker for domestic sales of the production facilities in the field of KONEX (FDP Note 1).

C. According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff: (a) had the executives and employees in charge of the purchase of Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Electronic Co., Ltd.”) request to examine the import contract for the PVD equipment, which is a kind of production equipment of Samsung KM 1 (TF 2) KON LEX 2; (b) Nonparty 1, the representative director of the Plaintiff’s company, was in charge of the meetings of Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd.; and (c) Nonparty 1, who had been in charge of the above brokerage and intermediation work, had the executives and employees of Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted EM”) attend the 3rd KON 2nd KON 3rd KON EM 2nd, who were in charge of the above request, to enter into the 3rd KM 3rd KON 2nd NAM 3rd KON 2nd 3rd NAE 2nd NAE 2nd 3rd NAE.

D. At the end of 2003, Nexexit made 300 ENexitian sell 2 PVD UNI 3000 ENE (ITO) in Switzerland currency 15,000,000 Swiss Franc (hereinafter “instant sale”) with the sales proceeds of this case from Samsung Electronic on November 2004, and received each payment of 2,625,000 ENF Franc as the sales proceeds of this case from Samsung Electronic.

2. Determination

(a) Occurrence of an obligation to pay brokerage commission;

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above sales proceeds of 15,000,000 Swiss Francs equivalent to 3.5% of the above sales proceeds of 15,00,000 Swiss Francs.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(1) The defendant, first of all, asserts that the contract of this case was concluded solely by the above non-party 2's act of breach of trust for the benefit of himself or a third party without going through a normal internal procedure, and thus, even if the representative director of the corporation did not go through internal procedures necessary for external transactions, such transaction is valid unless the other party knew or could have known such circumstances. Unless there are special circumstances, it shall be interpreted that the representative director trusted that the internal procedure of the company necessary for the transaction was completed. Thus, the other party to the transaction knew or could have known that he did not go through such internal procedure in this case, it shall be argued and proved by the company asserting that the other party did not go through such internal procedure in this case (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da3649, Jul. 28, 2005; 90Da25253, Dec. 11, 1990). Thus, the defendant's assertion that the non-party 2 was not aware of the above internal purpose of the contract of this case, without reporting the above internal purpose of the contract of this case.

(2) Next, since the Plaintiff’s act did not contribute to the sale of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not perform the contract of this case. Accordingly, according to the Plaintiff’s statements Nos. 11-1 and 2 and Nonparty 2’s testimony, the Plaintiff’s technical team and its officers and employees in charge of purchase of Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. sold the above Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. 2’s testimony or sales of Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. to Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. (BALS-LBLD), which is a kind of manufacturing equipment for Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. (CVD and the above equipment) around 1999, as it did not contribute to the sale of this case. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s above act did not contribute to the sale of this case, the Plaintiff’s head office and sales of Samsung Electronic Co. 2, Ltd., which was an intermediary of Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the Defendant’s testimony and sales of Samsung Electronic Co. 2, Ltd.

(c) Calculation of brokerage commission;

The plaintiff claimed the above brokerage commission 525,00 Swiss Franc as of December 1, 2004 when converting it into Korean currency. However, when the debtor pays foreign currency claims designated in foreign currency into Korean currency, it is different from the expression "where payment is made" under Articles 378 and 377 (2) of the Civil Act concerning the period of conversion, it is reasonable to say that the conversion should be made in Korean currency at the time of actual implementation, i.e., when the conversion is not the due date, i., when the foreign exchange rate is converted into Korean currency at the time of actual performance, i.e., when the creditor requests the above foreign currency claims at the time of conversion into Korean currency, 205,000, 2000,000 won x 10,000 won x 15,000 won x 20,000 won x 10,000 won x 15,000 won x 9,000 won hereinafter.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 424,247,250 won of the above brokerage commission and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from March 24, 2005 to November 15, 2005, which is the date of the decision of this case where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence or scope of the obligation of this case from March 24, 2005 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case as requested by the plaintiff, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is accepted within the above recognition scope,

Judges Bo Sang-won (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-sung

(i) simple and easy video display devices with thickness compared to TV or computer monitors using Flat Pis Doisphy, brush pipes;

Note 2) Thin Ftiltistor