logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.07.02 2013가합21196
도급비 등 청구
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 28, 2010, the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of building management, protecting and guarding the personal safety, facility security business, etc., and was entrusted by the Defendant with various services, including the operation of the calculation unit for C Points located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, a place of business owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant store”), broadcast, parking management and security, movie theater operation, facility management and US dollars, customer center operation, etc., from May 1, 2010 to take charge of these services. The service contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) was renewed twice, and the expiration date of the final contract period was April 30, 2013.

B. According to the above contract agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”), if the Plaintiff calculated the contract cost from the first day of each month to the last day of the following month and claimed it against the Defendant by the third day of next month, the Defendant confirmed the number of working days on the 10th of the following month (Provided, That the first bank business day, which comes on the 10th of the said month on the bank holiday), and paid the amount. The contract cost was determined to be paid by the Defendant directly from the retirement payment to the Plaintiff from the 15,756,720 won for the first renewal of the year 2011 in accordance with the consolidated estimate presented by the Plaintiff. However, when the first renewal of the second renewal in February 2012, the amount included in the contract cost was directly paid to the Plaintiff from the 10th of the following month (hereinafter “contract cost”).

C. Article 17 of the instant contract is deemed to have been renewed under the same conditions as the transfer, if the Plaintiff or the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff or the Defendant in writing of its intention of refusal of renewal or modification of the content of the contract 30 days prior to the expiration of the contract term.

The defendant decided to sell the instant store around the beginning of 2013 due to the aggravation of management of D Co., Ltd., the parent company, and on March 29, 2013.

arrow