beta
Text
1. The Defendant: USD 1,000,000 in U.S. dollars and its related amounts from November 23, 2012 to November 27, 2013.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence No. 1, 6, and 7:
The plaintiff is a company of the Hadar country established for the purpose of providing consulting services related to the projects ordered by the Government of the Canadian State (hereinafter referred to as the "Canadian").
B. The Defendant and E (hereinafter “E”) and F Company concluded a consortium agreement around May 2010 on the following: (a) the Ministry of Justice announced that they will carry out a large-scale project of “D Project” to reconstruct power generation facilities destroyed by B’s war in 2009; and (b) the Defendant and E (hereinafter “E”) and F Company agreed to participate in the project in a consortium form; and (c) concluded a consortium agreement around May 2010.
C. On July 12, 2010, with respect to the receipt of four projects (G, H, I, and J) ordered by E and C Electric Power Department (G, H, I, and J), the Plaintiff entered into an immigration exhibition agreement that “If E takes the project with the Plaintiff’s efforts, if E takes the project, it shall pay 5% of the total amount of the contract to the Plaintiff as commission.”
After that, the defendant alone, not in the consortium form with E, participated in the bidding for the contract of G project (hereinafter referred to as “G project”) (E, if the defendant ordered the project in question, to receive a subcontract from the defendant), and the plaintiff and the plaintiff made an oral agreement on the increase in the amount of the received amount that the defendant would have divided into 50:50 when the final amount of the received amount would be increased compared to the minimum amount of the received amount of the contract (hereinafter referred to as “VIP consulting agreement”) that the defendant would have divided into 50.
2. Claim for consulting fees concerning G projects;
A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties concerned is that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, around September 2010, prior to the conclusion of the VIP consulting contract, for the purpose of obtaining the G project order from the Defendant.