온라인 바카라사이트

1. 온라인 바카라사이트 Overview

a. Party Represented by Barun Law
The defendant construction company acting as the contractor in a resort development project financed through project finance (PF).

b. Background of the 온라인 바카라사이트
The construction company, having been delegated authority by the project developer, sub-delegated such authority to Company A. Company A subsequently entered into a commercial facilities MD (merchandising) service agreement with the plaintiff. After the resort development project fell through, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against both Company A and the construction company, seeking payment of the service fees.

c. Claims and Proceedings
The plaintiff argued that even if the construction company was not a direct party to the service agreement, it should nevertheless bear liability in its capacity equivalent to that of the project developer, and applied to have Company A's Vice President examined as a witness. The Vice President of Company A testified unfavorably, stating to the effect that the construction company managed the service agreement and therefore should bear full responsibility.


2. Judgment

While the court acknowledged the liability of Company A, it dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the defendant construction company.


3. Grounds for the Judgment

The court held that:
it was difficult to conclude that the plaintiff had actually performed services such as directly establishing leasing and operation strategies for the commercial facilities or planning the tenant mix pursuant to the MD service agreement;
although the commercial facilities' MD composition could have been provided free of charge if lease agreements were concluded with prospective tenants, it was abnormal for the plaintiff to be paid a substantial amount of service fees separately; and
Company A failed to properly report the execution and contents of the MD service agreement to the defendant construction company.


4. Our Arguments and Role

We closely reviewed the sub-delegation agreement, the MD service agreement, and the MD service reports, identified inconsistencies among them, and emphasized during the witness examination that the contract executed between Company A and the plaintiff was abnormal.


5. Significance of the Judgment

In the course of PF projects, numerous service agreements are often executed through multiple layers of delegation and sub-delegation. When a PF project collapses, service agreements that PF participants may not have fully accounted for can surface, giving rise to unexpected claims for service fees. Even in such cases, service fees should not be readily recognized; rather, it is necessary to examine, step by step, whether the service agreement violates the essential nature of a mandate and whether the purported service outcomes are genuine. This judgment reaffirmed a fundamental yet critically important principle.


□ Attorneys in charge: Park Soon-kwan, Hur Kyung-bum, Kim So-yeon