2016 Ghana 2337 Service charges

A

City Development Co., Ltd.

August 8, 2017

September 26, 2017

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 157,50,000 won with 15% interest per annum from November 8, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 10, 2015, when the Plaintiff recruited members equivalent to 50% of the total service cost (value-added tax separate) in relation to the Plaintiff’s business, the Plaintiff entered into a PM (hereinafter “the instant service contract”) agreement with the Defendant, stating that the Defendant may terminate the contract if the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff’s service cost within seven days.

B. Around March 2, 2016, C Housing Association applied for the authorization of the establishment of a housing association with 200 households and 102 number of its members, and around May 31, 2016, C Housing Association decided to recognize the number of its members as 109.

C. On March 2016, the Plaintiff recruited members equivalent to 50% of the total number of households to be constructed pursuant to the instant service contract to the Defendant, and accordingly, demanded payment of the amount equivalent to 70% of the total service cost. However, on April 13, 2016, the Defendant paid only 35 million won to the Plaintiff out of the total amount of services related to the recruitment of union members.

D. On June 12, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay the unpaid amount equivalent to 70% of the total service cost, but the Defendant failed to pay the unpaid amount. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of the content that the instant service contract will be terminated, and the Defendant received the next day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Whether the Plaintiff recruited members equivalent to 50% of the total number of households to be constructed

As seen earlier, the number of households scheduled to be constructed in C-Housing is 200 households, and the number of members at the time of provisional application for the establishment of the said housing association was 102, and the number of members at the time of decision to grant authorization was 109. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff recruited members equivalent to 50% of the number of households scheduled to be constructed under the instant service contract.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that 15 members from among the members recruited by the Plaintiff did not pay partnership fees, and that the Plaintiff did not recruit union members equivalent to 50% of the number of households scheduled to be constructed. Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff did not pay partnership fees, and that the Plaintiff should exclude the member from the number of union members recruited by the Plaintiff. Even if the member who was expelled from the number of union members due to not paying partnership fees should be excluded from the number of union members recruited by the Plaintiff, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement of the evidence No. 10, the Plaintiff was 121 members from the C Housing Association as of October 31, 2016, and the number of union members who were expelled was 14 members from among the members who did not pay partnership fees, and therefore, the Plaintiff recruited union members equivalent to 50% of the number of association members scheduled to be constructed.

B. The defendant's obligation to compensate for damages

According to the above facts, the service contract of this case was lawfully terminated on July 1, 2016 due to the fact that the plaintiff recruited members equivalent to 50% of the number of households scheduled to be constructed in accordance with the service contract of this case and requested the defendant to pay the service price corresponding to the contract of this case even though the defendant did not pay the service price to the defendant (this case is rather asserted that the service contract of this case was terminated due to reasons attributable to the plaintiff's recruitment of false members, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it). The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages. The amount of damages is 150,5750,000 won [192,50,000 won [275,000,000 won (total service price + 250,000,000 won)] calculated from the service price when the plaintiff recruits members equivalent to 50% of the number of households scheduled to be constructed [3,500,000 won].

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from November 8, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, as damages for delay after the termination of the contract of this case.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

In addition to the payment made on April 13, 2016 to the Plaintiff for the service related to the recruitment of union members, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 43,703,00 in total from September 9, 2015 to May 10, 2016.

B. Determination

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff paid approximately KRW 43 million to the plaintiff from September 9, 2015 to May 10, 2016, as the plaintiff paid approximately KRW 7,000 to the plaintiff as the service cost related to the recruitment of union members. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above KRW 43 million solely on the part of subparagraph 2, No. 9, No. 112, No. 12, and No. 12, and No. 3, No. 7, and No. 6, No. 7, No. 12, and No. 7, No. 6, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff had no reason to claim for cancellation of the service contract of this case as well as the purport of the whole statement and arguments of No. 2, No. 3, and there were no reasons to claim for cancellation of the service contract of this case to the plaintiff on July 2016 (see, e.g., the above contract of this case)., the plaintiff's.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Shin

1) The contract on the fourth floor is written on July 4, 2016 by the date of conclusion.

2) See the third pleading protocol of August 8, 2017.