beta
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. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an agency contract with the Defendant to jointly carry on eco-friendly flooring business. According to Article 2(1) of the agency contract, the Defendant has to protect the Plaintiff’s agency business.
B. Nevertheless, the Defendant concluded a construction contract with a contractor for street loan and completed the relevant construction work, or received part of the price for the construction work that the Plaintiff completed by contract as follows, directly from the contractor.
① When the Defendant came to know that the Plaintiff’s employee received orders related to the Cwork in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, he had resigned from F, and had the Defendant directly employed the said work and streeted the construction cost by performing the said work.
Thus, since the defendant violated Article 2 (1) of the agency contract, it is obligated to pay 60,000,000 won, which is equivalent to 20% of the above construction cost, to the plaintiff as damages.
② The Plaintiff also sent the same quotation to the Defendant after submitting a quotation in relation to the DD project located in the former North Korea, and the Defendant directly negotiated with G at a price lower than the amount stated in the said quotation, thereby gaining profits by concluding a construction contract and performing it.
Thus, since the defendant violated Article 2 (1) of the agency contract, it is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 22,060,000 won which is equivalent to 20% of the above construction cost as damages.
③ Around January 2016, the Plaintiff contracted the 81,400,000 Won for the construction work located in Young-gun, Jeonnam-gun from H Co., Ltd., and completed around April 2016.
However, the Defendant received KRW 4,400,000 directly from H Co., Ltd., while not only intended to block the above construction contract, but also ordered that F, an employee of the Defendant, did not directly receive the said construction contract.
Therefore, the defendant shall return the above amount to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.