2016 Ghana 22904 Service Fees

Modem m&C

1. Co., Ltd.;

2. The development of Dobongcheon Real Estate Investment Company;

January 10, 2017

February 16, 2017

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay 121,440,000 won and 15% interest per annum from September 27, 2016 to the date of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff was from December 7, 2015.

Until March 7, 2016, the Defendants entered into a contract with B Housing Association (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) to verify that service costs of KRW 12,1440,000 have not been paid as a result of the Plaintiff’s recruitment performance and to pay it within three days from the date of the Plaintiff’s claim for service costs (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) with the Defendants on March 7, 2016. The Defendants may recognize the fact that the Defendants claimed for service costs against the Defendants on April 26, 2016.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the service charges of KRW 122,1440,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 27, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case (an original copy of the payment order) to the Plaintiff under the contract of this case, except in extenuating circumstances.

As to this, the defendant Mady C&C asserts that the above defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because it was inevitable for the plaintiff to have a contract of this case which prevents the conclusion of the union member sales contract of this case. However, there is no evidence to prove that the above defendant had a contract of this case without any choice due to the interference with the plaintiff's union member sales contract. Therefore, the above defendant's claim is unreasonable without any need to further examine the remaining points.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is legitimate, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-han