beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from September 21, 2015 to September 23, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments made by Gap 1, 2-1 to 2-3, 3, and 4, the plaintiff entered into a service agreement with the defendant on May 26, 2015, which provides that the plaintiff shall hold a general meeting of the defendant in 2015 and receive 99 million won (including value-added tax) from the defendant. According to the above service agreement, according to the above service agreement, the contents of the service that the defendant takes charge are ① all affairs related to the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the company in 2015 (the essential items of the general meeting of the general meeting), ② all affairs related to the amendment of the articles of association, ③ all affairs related to the termination and selection of the specialized maintenance business entity, ④ affairs related to the application for authorization for the implementation of the project, ⑤ affairs related to the approval for the implementation of the project, and the plaintiff held the business affairs of the defendant in 2015 under the above service agreement.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay service charges to the plaintiff according to the performance of the above general meeting of shareholders.
In relation to the scope of the obligation to pay the above service cost and the scope of the obligation to pay the above service cost, according to the statement in Gap 1, the plaintiff is recognized as having performed only the business of holding the ordinary general meeting in 2015, which is part of the business stipulated in the above service contract. Thus, the plaintiff shall be paid the service cost
However, the defendant is obligated to pay 10 million won to the plaintiff the above service price, unless there are special circumstances. Since the defendant is obligated to pay 10 million won to the plaintiff the above service price.
In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that since the substantial business activities of the above service contract are the holding business of the general meeting of shareholders in 2015, the plaintiff should be paid the full amount of the above service contract (99 million won).
As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall follow the content of the document unless there is any counter-proof.