logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.13 2013가단5144821
용역비
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On December 1, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a performance service contract (hereinafter “instant first contract”) providing the Plaintiff with the Defendant for the performance and operation of the dance show (hereinafter “instant performance”) during the EXPO 2012 EXPO 2012 EXPO 454,609,200 won as contract price (hereinafter “instant performance”).

However, on December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to change the service cost to KRW 248,995,886 from April 1, 2012 to November 30, 2012 under the instant contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract 2”).

As such, the reason why the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract was that the Plaintiff requested from the Organizing Committee on the EXPO 2 (hereinafter “Organizing Committee”) to change the unit price of the instant performance once a day to twice a day, which is the content of the initial estimate of the performance. The Plaintiff accepted the request and provided the same free performance once a day as it is, and the additional performance was offered once a day. After being requested by the Organizing Committee to change the number of performances once a day from twice a day to once a day, the Organizing Committee did not consider the fact that the unit price of the performance was maintained as is, and the number of performances was reduced from twice a day to twice a day without considering the fact that the number of performances was reduced from twice a day to twice a day, and the unit price of the performance was reduced from twice a day to twice a day (i.e., 1/2).

After the follow-up settlement process, the first settlement is conducted after the reduction to 1/2 of the first performance unit price without being settled at the first performance unit price, and the Plaintiff concluded the second contract of this case and concluded the remainder reduction on the premise that the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, which belongs to the Organizational Committee, is subject to the judgment on the illegality of the reduction decision in the administrative litigation. However, the decision was rejected in the administrative litigation, and the main decision was received.

arrow