(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.12 2014가단5085219

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.12 2014가단5085219

위약금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 60 million and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 30, 2013 to February 12, 2015, as follows.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a securities company that runs the financial investment business and advisory business, and the Defendant is an executor of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Residential Housing and Officetel construction business (hereinafter “instant business”).

B. On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a service contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the following content.

[Financial Advice/Mediation Service Contract] In promoting the financial procurement of the instant project (hereinafter “the instant loan transaction”), the Defendant agreed to receive financial advice and mediation services from the Plaintiff for the pertinent loan transaction, and agreed as follows:

Article 1 [Guarantee and Confirmation as to Transactions] The defendant requests the plaintiff to provide services related to this transaction exclusively to the role and scope of the service provider under Article 5 during the effective period of the contract under Article 13 and confirms that the plaintiff has a legitimate right to the request.

Article 2 [Purpose] The purpose of this Agreement is to provide advisory services (hereinafter referred to as “services”) to the Defendant for the smooth promotion and successful completion of the project promoted by the Defendant. To this end, the purpose of this Agreement is to provide the overall matters and duties between the service mandator and the Defendant and the service consignee.

Article 3 [Status of Parties] The defendant is recognized as a party who serves as a financial adviser and intermediary for the transaction of this case. The defendant does not request the defendant to another agency until the plaintiff consents.

In addition, the plaintiff does not provide the role of the plaintiff to another executor in relation to the business before the defendant gave his consent.

If the defendant and the plaintiff violate the above matters, they will pay the penalty of KRW 100 million as penalty.

However, the issue of finality of the financial intermediary is related to relevant laws and relevant financial institutions.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안양지원 2019.07.04 2018가합100675

-인천지방법원 2020.11.24 2019가합61006

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.23 2015가합546560

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.04.22 2020가합523561

-서울남부지방법원 2018.10.10 2018가단203214