beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 56,785,714 as well as the annual 5% from October 13, 2018 to February 18, 2020 to the Plaintiff, and the following.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From September 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly provided consulting services for the development of the apartment construction site and the conclusion of a sales contract on the apartment site. On September 22, 2015, the Defendant agreed to receive KRW 280 million from the buyer’s side and pay KRW 110 million among them to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “instant agreement”). (b)
On October 8, 2015, according to the provision of the above services, a sales contract was concluded with regard to four parcels of land, including the seller’s 5,666 square meters, from the seller and two others, the buyer and one other, and 4,167,00,000 won.
C. On October 8, 2015, E paid KRW 40,000,000, which is part of the above service cost to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid KRW 10,000,000 out of the above amount received to the Plaintiff.
Around September 27, 2017, the Defendant received additional payment of KRW 130 million from E as the service cost of the above service around September 27, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 4, Eul's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings
2. On September 22, 2015, the instant agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the allocation of business expenses. Accordingly, inasmuch as the Defendant received a total of KRW 170 million from the buyer’s side, it is reasonable to view that the amount to be paid to the Plaintiff out of the amount to be paid to the Plaintiff is KRW 66,785,714 (i.e., KRW 170 million x 110 million x 200 million ± 280,000,000 won, and less than KRW 80,000,00 for the convenience of calculation).
In addition to the above E’s testimony that is difficult to believe, the contract for the provision of services concluded with E was terminated due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation.
There is no evidence to prove that the instant agreement has been invalidated.
The Defendant’s unpaid contract amounting to KRW 56,785,714 (=66,785,714) and the scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation from October 13, 2018, clearly following the date of delivery of a copy of the instant complaint.