All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2022Da289174 Decided March 30, 2023 【Service Fee】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issue and Holding】 [1] Where a contract is rescinded before the completion of all the work stipulated in a contract for work, whether a contractor may demand remuneration from the person who has ordered the work (negative in principle) A case where a contractor’s right to demand remuneration for the part of work already completed can be admitted as an exception and standard of determining whether a case corresponds thereto [2] Meaning of “the delivery of the finished object of the work” prescribed in Article 665(1) of the Civil Act [3] In a case where Stock Company A partially paid service fees in the name of a down payment after concluding a contract for work in relation to the research and design business with Stock Company B to promote an urban development project in the form of residents’ proposals but demanded the return of service fees already paid against Stock Company B after rescinding the contract for work on the grounds that Stock Company B did not provide Stock Company A with accomplishments related to resident proposals, the case holding that in light of the overall circumstances, even though viewing that, even if the service work that Stock Company B partially performed in accordance with the contract for work exists, Stock Company B has a right to demand remuneration from Stock Company A according thereto or Stock Company A has gained unjust enrichment equivalent to remuneration is difficult, the lower court, which determined that remuneration for services performed by Stock Company B should be deducted from service fees to be restituted, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine | |
