logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.02.10 2013나79582
약정금
Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company of the Hadar State, which is a Canada State, established with the aim of providing consulting services related to the business ordered by the Government of the Canadian State (hereinafter “C”);

B. The Defendant and E Co., Ltd (hereinafter “E”) and F Co., Ltd. agreed to participate in the project in a consortium form and entered into a consortium agreement around May 2010, when the Ministry of Justice announced that the Defendant will implement the large-scale project of “D Project” to reconstruct the power generation facilities destroyed by B’s war around 2009.

C. On July 12, 2010, with respect to the receipt of four projects (G, H, I, and J) ordered by E and C Electric Power Department (G, H, I, and J), the Plaintiff entered into an immigration exhibition agreement that “If E takes the project with the Plaintiff’s efforts, if E takes the project, it shall pay 5% of the total amount of the contract to the Plaintiff as commission.”

After that, according to the request of the CJ department, the Defendant alone participated in the bidding for the contract of G project (hereinafter referred to as “G project”) (E was subcontracted by the Defendant if the Defendant ordered the project) by itself, not in the consortium form with E, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to enter into a consulting contract for the increase of the number of shares (hereinafter referred to as “VIP consulting contract”) that would have to be divided into 50:50 if the final amount of shares is increased compared to the minimum amount of shares expected to be received by the Defendant, and as seen thereafter, the agreement was entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to pay USD 7,856,000 to the Plaintiff according to the VIP consulting contract on April 7, 2011.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The plaintiff of the applicable law is a consulting contract for the contract between the defendant and the G project, and P projects and Q.

arrow