2017 Gohap 518989 Service Fees

A Stock Company

1. B Regional Housing Association Promotion Committee;

2. C

February 27, 2018

March 15, 2018

1. Defendant B’s regional housing association promotion committee shall pay to the Plaintiff 220,794,99 won and 6% per annum from December 26, 2016 to March 15, 2018; and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the promotion committee of the regional housing association B and the defendant C are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant B District Housing Association promotion committee is borne by the promotion committee of Defendant B District Housing Association, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant C is borne by

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Plaintiff shall pay 221,295,000 won to the promotion committee of Defendant B’s regional housing association, and Defendant C shall pay 142,695,000 won out of the above amount jointly with Defendant B’s regional housing association promotion committee, and 6% per annum from December 26, 2016 to the date of final delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on December 28, 2015 for the purpose of management consulting business, redevelopment and reconstruction consulting business, etc.; Defendant B’s regional housing association promotion committee (hereinafter “Defendant B’s promotion committee”) is a non-corporate association organized on January 5, 2015 for the purpose of establishing the Seoul Mapo-gu District Housing Association (hereinafter “instant association”); Defendant C is the chairman of the Defendant promotion committee.

B. On October 19, 2015, the Defendant Promotion Committee resolved to select the Plaintiff as a service company to proceed with the business of the instant association. At the time, the Plaintiff was in preparation for the establishment of a company, and thus, on November 27, 2015, a business service contract was concluded between E and the Defendant Promotion Committee (hereinafter “instant service contract”) between E and the representative, and the main contents are as follows.

1) The project name: 2. The project name of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government : the contract amount of 4.0 billion won (Won 2,00,000) (VT 6. The contract term of this case is effective) 3. The contract shall be renewed under the name of the association obtained at the time of the establishment of the regional housing association. ② The contract amount of 5. The project operator shall be deemed to have interfered with the execution of the project under the following terms and conditions of the contract: (1) The project operator shall be deemed to have carried out the project under the following conditions of the contract; (2) the project operator shall be deemed to have carried out the project at the time of the implementation of the project; (3) the project operator shall be deemed to have carried out the project at the time of the implementation of the project; (4) the project operator shall be deemed to have carried out the project at the time of the implementation of the project; and (4) the project operator shall be deemed to have carried out the project at the time of the completion of the project; (2) the project management and the project supervision of the project.

C. Since the Plaintiff was established and registered on December 28, 2015, E’s rights and obligations under the instant 1 business service contract were succeeded to the Plaintiff. On February 5, 2016, the business service contract was concluded again on February 5, 2016 by modifying the detailed terms and conditions of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Promotion Committee (hereinafter “instant 2 service contract”). The main contents of the contract are as follows (other matters than the instant 1 service contract are the same as the instant 1 service contract):

B The Committee for Promotion of Regional Housing Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Chairperson C, hereinafter referred to as the "A") and the Committee for Promotion of Business Service A (hereinafter referred to as the "B") enter into a business service contract with the following contents: 5. Contract amount: The 20th day of each month in cash payment of KRW 15,000,000 (VAT) for the recruitment of union members: 3,000,000 (Won 3,30,000,000) (VAT) and Article 5 (Remuneration and Time of Payment) (1) of the remuneration for the performance of duties differs depending on the following: (a) remuneration for the performance of duties; (b) basic remuneration for the recruitment of union members; (a) basic remuneration for the recruitment of union members; and (c) the payment date or amount: 15,000,000 (VAT) :

D. On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff (E) entered into a lease agreement with F on the first floor of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing from December 18, 2015 to December 18, 2016, with the term “period of 20,000,000, 3,100,000 won for the rent month, and 20,000 won for each lease (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”), as part of the instant service agreement’s support for the sale of facilities for sale as prescribed in Article 4(2)(c) of the instant service agreement, and thereafter, the Plaintiff (E) operated the instant association publicity center at the said place from December 18, 2015 to December 18, 2016.

E. The instant lease contract terminated on December 18, 2016, and the Plaintiff did not provide the instant service to the Defendant Promotion Committee after the end of the instant loan contract. From the date of the conclusion of the instant service contract to December 18, 2016, the amount that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant Promotion Committee in relation to the instant service was totaled KRW 25,00,000 as basic remuneration, and KRW 25,27,277,273 as promotional officer’s operating expenses (rent and personnel expenses).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 10, 11, 14, Eul evidence 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant Promotion Committee

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

1) The basic remuneration portion

The Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 15,00,000 (value added tax) monthly from November 27, 2015 to the 20th day of each month, 200, the date of the instant service contract. The Plaintiff’s basic remuneration for the instant service contract between 10,000,000 won and 20,000 won was 25,00,000 won and 60,000 won, 60,000 won and 10,000 won, 60,000 won, 60,000 won and 10,000 won and 60,00 won and 10,000 won and 60,000 won and 10,000 won and 60,000 won and 10,000 won and 60,000 won and 10,000 won and 20,000 won and 10,06,016.

shall be liable to pay damages for delay.

2) Part of operating expenses of the public relations center

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff agreed to bear all the expenses incurred in performing its duties at the time of entering into the instant service contract (Article 4(3) of the instant service contract), and the Plaintiff’s promotion and consultation in accordance with the instant service contract from December 18, 2015 to December 18, 2016. The fact that the sum of the expenses paid by the Defendant’s promotion committee as the operating expenses for the above period is 25,277,273, and the fact that the sum of the expenses paid by the Defendant’s promotion committee as the operating expenses for the above period is 25,277,273, and the overall purport of the statement and pleading as prescribed in subparagraph 14, and the fact that the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 5,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) as the operating expenses for the promotion committee with the Defendant’s promotion committee on 25th day of each month, 270,000 won and KRW 274,7222,727

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Defendant Promotion Committee is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 220,794,99 (=basic remuneration of KRW 182,600,00 + operational expenses of the public relations center + KRW 38,194,99) and to pay damages for delay at each rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is established from December 26, 2016 to March 15, 2018, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant Promotion Committee to dispute about the existence and scope of the duty of performance, as the Plaintiff seeks.

B. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant Promotion Committee

The defendant promotion committee asserts to the effect that the plaintiff did not properly perform his/her duties under the instant service contract, did not perform his/her contractual duties for establishing the association, and did not perform his/her duties for three months. Thus, the plaintiff's request cannot be complied with.

The facts that the Plaintiff entered into the instant service contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Promotion Committee, and the Plaintiff continued to provide the instant service from the date of entering into the contract to December 18, 2016 are as seen earlier. The following circumstances that can be comprehensively known by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions and the entire purport of arguments as stated in Gap’s evidence Nos. 14, 17, and 19 are as follows. In other words, the Defendant Promotion Committee did not terminate the instant service contract on the ground of the Plaintiff’s negligence of business, etc., and it seems that it did not particularly consider the Plaintiff’s ability to perform the instant service, and rather, the Defendant Promotion Committee did not consider the issue of the Plaintiff’s ability to perform the instant service. Rather, on September 21, 2016, the Defendant Promotion Committee prepared the instant service contract with the Plaintiff on September 20, 2016 as the basic remuneration and promotional officer’s operating expenses for the instant service, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the above facts.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that, around September 20, 2016, Defendant C prepared a confirmation document (hereinafter “instant confirmation document”) that jointly and severally guaranteed KRW 142,695,00,000 among the obligations arising from the instant reverse contract for the business of this case by the Defendant Promotion Committee against the Plaintiff, Defendant C sought payment of KRW 142,695,00 and damages for delay.

B. Determination

The main text of the confirmation document of this case was printed to the effect that "B" regional housing association promotion committee and C will pay the plaintiff the service cost not paid from January 1, 2016 to the plaintiff in implementing the development project of the regional housing association. The fact that the defendant C written the author column in the confirmation document of this case in writing by the parties does not conflict between the parties. However, the author column of the confirmation document of this case includes the following circumstances that can be seen by considering the whole contents of Gap evidence 14 and the whole arguments. In other words, in the author column of the confirmation document of this case, the name of the organization: B regional housing association promotion committee, representative of the local housing association: the chairman, address: the Seoul Mapo-gu, and the seal of the defendant promotion committee is affixed only to the official seal of the defendant promotion committee. The defendant C did not affix the seal and the personal information of the defendant C including resident registration number and house address, and the defendant C did not bear the above personal responsibility for the plaintiff at the time of concluding the service contract of this case, and there is no reason to recognize the plaintiff C's joint and joint surety 17.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant promotion committee is justified within the above scope of recognition. The remaining claims against the above defendant and the claims against the defendant C are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Jong-ho

Judges Lee Jae-ap

Judges Jeon Soo-soo