logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.04.15 2015나2014493
금융자문수수료
Text

1. Of the part on the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the costs of KRW 2,200,000,000 as to the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and 2,00,000 among them.

Reasons

1. This part of the judgment of this court is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) completed the Plaintiff’s financial advisory service as stipulated in the instant advisory service agreement and the Plaintiff’s ancillary service. (2) Even if the Plaintiff did not implement the instant advisory service, the Plaintiff’s financial advisory service fee under the instant advisory agreement is subject to the implementation of the PF loan, and even if the Plaintiff did not implement the PF loan, the Defendant interfered with the fulfillment of the terms and conditions against the good faith, thereby causing the effect of the Plaintiff’s fulfillment of such conditions as the completion of the implementation

(3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the financial advisory fee of KRW 2 billion and value-added tax of KRW 200 million, plus KRW 200 million. 2) The Defendant’s assertion ① The instant advisory contract is a contract with the condition of suspending the selection of Tae Young Construction as a contractor, which is a contract with the condition of suspending the selection of Tae Young Construction as a contractor, and the internal number of the chief Justice of Tae Young Construction was finally rejected, and thus becomes null and void due to non-performance of the condition of suspension

② Even if the instant advisory contract is valid, the financial advisory fee is paid to the Plaintiff for completion of the Plaintiff’s PF loan implementation, and the Plaintiff failed to complete the enforcement of the PF loan.

B. Determination 1) Evidence A 5, Evidence A 9-1 through 27, Evidence A 10-1 through 53, evidence A 13-1 through 27, evidence A 22, evidence A 23-1, 2, A 24, 25, evidence A 26-1, 27-2, evidence A 27-1 through 4, evidence A 28-1 through 6, evidence A 29-1 through 180, evidence A 30-1 through 3, evidence No. 8, evidence B-1 through 3, evidence No. 9-1 through 3, evidence No. 21, evidence No. 23, and evidence No. 25, witness of the court of first instance, G-1, and H.

arrow