logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.07 2018가합534186
기타(금전)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company running real estate development business, etc. and promoting new hotel development business (hereinafter “instant business”) in a lot of 57-50 and 6 lots in Mapo-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant lot”). The Plaintiff is a company that runs the investment brokerage business, etc., and entered into a financial consulting contract with the Defendant.

B. On October 13, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a financial advisory agreement with the Defendant that provides financial services, such as advisory services on the instant project, and the Defendant pays advisory fees of KRW 700 million (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant primary agreement”).

The main contents of the instant primary contract are as follows.

(C) The purpose of Article 1 is to provide the Plaintiff with financial services on advisory services, etc. to the Defendant, and to provide for matters concerning the payment of advisory fees to the Plaintiff by the Defendant for a new hotel development project related to the Seoul Mapo-dong, Nowon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “subjected project”), which is owned by the Defendant or a related person.

Article 2 (Scope of Plaintiff’s Duties)

1. Advice on the effective financial structure relating to the instant project (Equitable, Dadrology, ABS, ABCP, ABL, electronic short-term bond, real estate fund, Lts, etc.)

2. Support for preparation, etc. of relevant data for the finance related to the instant project;

3. Ratio of duties of participating institutions related to the project of this case.

4. General management of schedule with respect to the instant financial business;

5. In relation to the performance of advisory duties under Article 2, the exclusive status of the advisory officer under Article 3 of the advisory duties on the project of this case and the defendant to guarantee the exclusive status of the advisory officer is subject to financial advice through the plaintiff during the contract term.

arrow