beta
Text
The defendant's 34,628,00 won and its relation to the plaintiff shall be 5% per annum from January 2, 2018 to August 19, 2020.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 11, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for prior subscription to commercial facilities outside Chungcheong C and for human resources supply services, including consultants necessary for the business thereof (hereinafter “prior subscription service contract”).
B. On January 2, 2018, the Plaintiff performed services in accordance with the instant prior subscription service contract and completed the services on or around January 2, 2018.
(c)
On August 31, 2017, the Plaintiff received KRW 27,687,00 from the Defendant as the primary service cost, but did not receive the remainder of KRW 34,628,00 (including value added tax).
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff losses for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 2, 2018 to August 19, 2020, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of complete payment.
In this regard, the defendant is the actual party to the prior subscription service contract of this case, which is the non-party D and the defendant merely lent the name in order to promptly promote the sales business of this case, and the payment of the service price was made to the defendant when the non-party D paid the price in the name of the promotional personnel expenses in the non-party loan agreement of this case to the plaintiff, but the defendant did not receive the advance subscription service cost from the non-party loan D, so the defendant is not responsible for the payment of the service cost incurred under the prior subscription service contract of this case, but there is no reason to acknowledge it.
3. We decide to accept the Plaintiff’s claim for the conclusion of the judgment on the grounds of its reasoning.