beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A’s KRW 277,620,00 and interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from August 21, 2019 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The relationship 1) The Plaintiff is a corporation established pursuant to Article 26 of the Information and Communications Industry Promotion Act, which is a quasi-government agency under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Science and ICT that provides support for research and policy-making of the information and communications industry, support for the promotion and development of information and communications industry, support facilities, support for the establishment and growth of information and communications enterprises, etc.). Defendant A has worked as the responsible research institute belonging to the Plaintiff from August 2009, and D is the representative director of the radio Internet information service industry E (hereinafter referred to as “E”), who is a person in charge of overall business of the company, and F is the representative director of the company as a software development, sale and distribution company, and H is a person in charge of overall business as the representative director of G (hereinafter referred to as “G”), who is a software development and supplier company, and H is a person in charge of overall business management of the Defendant Company B (i.e., I., the company prior to the change: Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B”).
B. In relation to the “K project,” which was planned by the Plaintiff and implemented by the Plaintiff from the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (hereinafter “the instant project task”), the company L Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) was changed on March 21, 2014 in relation to the “K project,” which was supported by government contributions from the Ministry
hereinafter referred to as “L”
(2) In order to implement the project task of this case, upon the introduction of Defendant A, who is the person in charge of the Plaintiff’s task of this case, performed the hardware and software development services, and G performed the supply of servers and network equipment, respectively. (2) The Defendant A received, around March 2012, the amount higher than the amount the Defendant would actually receive from E, inasmuch as L was selected as the main institution for the project task of this case and received government contributions from the Plaintiff around March 2012.