logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.07.20 2017가합61392
용역계약무효확인
Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay 35,000,000 won to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. Since the redevelopment of the Incheon Gyeyang-gu D members, small and medium enterprises located in the above region established a non-corporate association under the name of the E Association (hereinafter “E Association”) around April 2003 in order to implement the business of creating the relocation complex (hereinafter “instant business”).

B. Around May 2003, E Union acquired the ownership of land of 152,322m2 square meters in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, as a primary site. Around May 2006, E Union acquired the ownership of land of 72,231.05m2 in Seo-gu, Incheon as a secondary site.

E Union: (a) on October 12, 2005, partially transferred the ownership of a divided land to the Plaintiff, who was in the position of a union member, by dividing it into “Sacheon-gu C Miscellaneous land 1,548 square meters” (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) transferring the ownership of the divided land to the Plaintiff.

(c) The E Union shall be above b.

The project in this case was implemented by means of the proposal to designate an urban development zone in relation to the project site stated in the subsection, but around October 2012, the competent authorities received the final return of the proposed proposal from the competent authorities, and accordingly, passed a resolution to dissolve the E Union by opening a general meeting on January 2015.

C. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraph, when it is no longer difficult to implement the instant project en bloc by the E Union, some of the members of the E Union including the Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “members for convenience”) signed an agency service contract with the Defendant, who had been engaged in real estate consulting business in the name of H as a main agent of the E Union, for the purpose of surveying, civil engineering, construction, civil engineering, construction, construction, etc., and prepared an agency service contract with the Defendant using the form prepared in advance by the Defendant’s vice characters.

E. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are below the agency service contract on December 1, 2016.

arrow