온라인 바카라

①Who did 온라인 바카라 (attorneys Lee Jae-sook and Jeong Seok-young) represented? D** Holdings incorporated with business objectives to carry out real estate development business

②Case background: D** Holdings was required money for purchasing land in the course of prosecuting a project to develop and construct an office building. Upon D** Holdings’ request, the plaintiff introduced one of his friends (“Mr. N”) to D** Holdings. Mr. N lent about KRW2.1 billion to D** Holdings in two installments (the “Loan”).

③Litigation: The plaintiff claimed the payment of service fees against D** Holdings, arguing to the effect that D** Holdings had requested him to recruit investors for the project for a fee equivalent to 3% of investments financed by him.

④District court’s decision: The district court found that there had been an agreement made between D** Holdings and the plaintiff regarding the payment of the service fee on the basis of indirect factual background such as “bridge funding fee” indicted in the disbursement statement of D** Holdings. D** Holdings requested us to represent it in the appeal to the district court’s decision.

Explaining that in order for an agreement to be formed, it was required that there be an agreement of intentions between the parties, and the agreement of such intentions did not have to be regarding all matters constituting the contents of the agreement, but there should be an agreement of intentions between the parties with regard to essential or material matters or at least an agreement on standards and methods that could be specifically identifiable in the future, the Seoul Central District Court determined that the facts found by the lower court and evidence submitted by the plaintiff did not enough for it to admit that the service agreement alleged by the plaintiff had been executed with D** Holdings, and ruled to cancel the lower court’s decision and to dismiss all the claims made by the plaintiff.

We emphasized that there was no service agreement executed between the two parties or a document apparently similar thereto, and substantiated to the effect that the alleged agreement on the payment of service fees could not be presumed from evidentiary materials submitted by the plaintiff. In addition, we focused on impeaching the credibility of the witness’s testimony which had been a core basis of the lower court’s finding that the agreement on the payment of service fees existed.

Just like this case, when a judgment has already been made at the lower court to admit the existence of a specific fact on the basis of evidence, it is most important to break the prejudice or conviction of the court regarding the existing evidence.

This case has implications in that we persuaded the court to have conviction that the existence of the service fee payment agreement was not been sufficiently proved through analysis and substantiation of evidentiary materials despite the facts that the court had already acknowledged the existence of the service fee payment agreement and that the disbursement statement in which the same amount of money had been indicated as “bridge funding fee” had been submitted to the court.