beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On August 22, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of services with regard to the services, such as acting as the representative of the Defendant at the time of the Defendant’s general meeting of residents and publicity of the residents’ general meeting, with the amount of KRW 135,598,000, and the service period from August 24, 201 to September 4, 201, and fulfilled all the above contracts.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 88,460,00 (=135,598,000 - Amount of KRW 40,000 - deducted amount of KRW 7,138,000 (cost of banner, rental fee, etc. directly paid by the Defendant) and damages for delay.
2. The judgment of the defendant is the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association established promotion committee approved by the government mayor under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents
(No. 10). According to Article 25 of the Rules of the Defendant’s Operation, the Defendant can only decide on the service contract, etc. within the scope of the budget determined by the resolution of the residents’ general meeting.
(No. 13) No. 135,598,000 service charges shall be deemed to constitute a service contract within budgetary limits determined by the resolution of the residents' general meeting.
Even if the above service contract constitutes a service contract within budgetary limits determined by the resolution of the residents' general meeting.
Even if evidence Nos. 5, 8, and 6, evidence Nos. 6, and witness C and B are insufficient to recognize that the above service contract with the service cost of KRW 135,598,000 was resolved by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Unless it is deemed that it has undergone a legitimate resolution of the residents' general meeting or promotion committee, the above service contract has no effect.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da49650 Decided August 30, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da105112 Decided April 28, 201, etc.). The Defendant’s defense pointing this out is with merit, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is rejected.