1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Case summary

A. The Defendant established a local E (hereinafter “E”) that is a local corporation of the Philippines and entered into a management contract with D (hereinafter “D”) established at the local site of the Philippines by the Plaintiff and its representative director C in the course of carrying out the construction project (hereinafter “the instant project”) in the region where the Austria is located (hereinafter “E”). On May 7, 2010, the Defendant is an enforcement body of the Switzerland government, which is the enforcement body of the Republic of the Philippines on May 7, 2010 by the Plaintiff et al., and is an enforcement body of the Switzerland government to create a self-supporting tourism, industry, commerce, finance, and investment-oriented city to create an employment-oriented city.

(hereinafter referred to as the “SBMA”) and the LBMA only concluded a lease agreement on the instant project site for the construction of the Lbaart located at the coast of the region (hereinafter referred to as the “instant site”).

B. On December 3, 2009, prior to the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a business agreement (hereinafter “instant business agreement”) with the purport that “where the instant lease agreement is concluded, the Defendant shall pay USD 1,500,000 (excluding value-added tax) to the Plaintiff as remuneration.”

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that US dollars 1,650,00 (including value-added tax) shall be paid in accordance with the instant business agreement, since the instant lease agreement was concluded under the intermediation of the Plaintiff, etc., and the Defendant asserted that the instant business agreement was concluded for the purpose of delivering the street funds to the persons related to the SBMA authority for rent/entertainment expenses for the purpose of prompt conclusion of the instant lease agreement, resolution of private land issues, and prompt and efficient implementation of various authorization/permissions through the Plaintiff, and thus, constitutes an anti-social legal act, and thus, is null and void.

2.