logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.16 2018나26603
용역비
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of the architectural field business, the architectural design service business, etc., and the Defendant is an individual entrepreneur who runs the architectural design business in the trade name of “C architect office”.

B. Around March 2017, the Defendant ordered “D Corporation Design Services” that was ordered by the Office of Education of Gyeongnam-do, and the same year.

7. 4. In relation to the above design service, the Plaintiff entered into a construction-related service contract with the following contents (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The name of public official: The service contract amount of DD Corporation design service: the amount of value-added tax of KRW 6,700,000 (Won 6,700,000): The summary of the decision after consultation: Article 1(1) of the Act on July 4, 2017; the defendant shall be liable for the payment of the service cost as the person ordering this contract. (2) The plaintiff shall be liable for the faithful performance of the service under this contract.

(1) The Plaintiff shall not divulge any business related to his duties to a third party. (2) The Plaintiff shall provide the details of Article 3 to the Defendant when it supplies the Defendant with respect to the content of Article 3.

Article 5 (Payment of Service Costs) Estimated Service Costs are to be paid when the service is completed after delivery (Expenses are to be paid within 30 days after delivery).

C. On August 22, 2017, the Plaintiff sent performance materials prepared by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as an electronic mail, and sent the same materials by content-certified mail to the Defendant on August 23, 2017 following the following day.

On August 24, 2017, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a notice of termination of a service contract containing a statement of intent that “the termination of the instant contract” by content-certified mail. On the other hand, on the same day, the Defendant newly entered into a construction-related service contract with E regarding “D construction design medicine” between E and others, and details from the above E.

arrow