2017 Ghana 10034 Service charges

A Stock Company

B Stock Company

January 9, 2018

February 6, 2018

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 96,727,273 won with 15% interest per annum from February 28, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the Plaintiff’s duty of deliberation on construction to the North-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Office, which is the permission-granting authority, with the service price of the D Area Housing Association at KRW 146,00,000,000 in relation to the new construction of the D Area Housing Association at the defendant and the Gwangju Northern-gu Seoul Northern-gu Seoul Northern-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

“Constructioner / Permit (Design Consultation) Rental Service Contract was concluded; E, the Plaintiff’s intra-company director, submitted various design drawings and explanatory materials necessary for deliberation for the dry construction; and obtained approval for construction deliberation from the head of Gwangju Metropolitan City North Korea on October 19, 2015; and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 49,272,727 out of the service cost; barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the service cost of KRW 96,727,273 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 28, 2017 to the date of full payment after the date of delivery of the complaint to the Plaintiff (Therefore, the Plaintiff did not perform the service duty; the Defendant’s assertion that the service contract was prepared by the representative director of the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company in order to discharge funds in the form of the Defendant Company).

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not faithfully perform his/her duty under the service contract, and that the service fee cannot be paid any more than 50 million won as well as the performance of his/her duty. However, as long as the plaintiff performed the service contract for the deliberation of construction concluded with the defendant and the construction deliberation was conducted, the above reasons alleged by the defendant alone cannot be reduced or refused to pay the service fee. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-ho