beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person operating the (oil)C for solar power generation business, and the Defendant is a corporation established for solar power generation business.
B. Around June 2017, the Plaintiff introduced to the Defendant six persons, such as D, E, F, G, H, I, etc. to sell in solar power plants, and, as a result, entered into a contract under which the Plaintiff is to receive 3.3% of the income tax (=46 million won x 96.7% x 96.3% (=10% - 100%) from the Defendant at the time of the receipt of the electric permission, 30% (the first agreed amount), 30% at the time of the issuance of the electric permission, 40% (the second agreed amount) at the time of issuance of the permission for development activities, and 40% (the third agreed amount) at the time of issuance of the permission for development activities (hereinafter “instant contract”).
C. Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff introduced the above six persons to the Defendant for permission for development activities. During the process, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff totaling KRW 26,689,200 as agreed money under the instant contract. The specific procedural progress process and the time of payment of agreed money are as listed below.
G, H, ID, E, and F The first commitment payments on July 21, 2017, which are replaced by another permitted site on August 4, 2017, the receipt of electric permission on August 21, 2017, on September 20, 2017, for the second commitment payments on September 20, 2017, the issuance of electric permission on September 20, 2017, which is September 20, 2017.
D. On September 10, 2018, the Plaintiff, after the above permission for development activities, was given to the Defendant.
The content of the instant contract as indicated in the subsection was sent to the Defendant for the payment of unpaid agreed amount, and the content certification reached the following day.
Accordingly, on September 11, 2018, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content refusal on the ground that the contract with D, E, and F had already been revoked, and the content certification reached the Plaintiff around that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, and Eul evidence No. 3.