CONTENTS
- 1. The Client Who Came to Daeryun's Cheongju Office
- 2. The Basic Facts of the Case Confirmed by Daeryun's Cheongju Office
- - The Certified Legal Notice Reply Sent by Daeryun's Cheongju Office
- 3. Daeryun's Cheongju Office Sets Out to Defend the Client
- - Daeryun's Cheongju Office Emphasizes the Improper Intent of the Plaintiffs in the Client's Case
- - Daeryun's Cheongju Office Emphasizes That the Plaintiffs' Argument That No Contract Was Entered Into Is False
- - Daeryun's Cheongju Office Emphasizes the Absence of Grounds for Contract Termination
- 4. Daeryun's Cheongju Office Achieves a “Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Claim”
1. The Client Who Came to Daeryun's Cheongju Office
The client who came to Daeryun's Cheongju office was a person engaged in the liquefied petroleum gas supply business, and requested the assistance of a Cheongju attorney, stating that a lawsuit seeking confirmation of termination of a supply contract had been filed against him.
2. The Basic Facts of the Case Confirmed by Daeryun's Cheongju Office
Daeryun's Cheongju office reviewed the basic facts of this case in order to defend the client, and the contents are as follows.
▲The plaintiffs were residents of a house who received and used the liquefied petroleum gas supplied by the client's company
▲The plaintiffs agreed to the contract presented by the client and entered into a supply contract
▲After the client obtained a license for a liquefied petroleum gas sales business of less than 3 tons, the regulations changed and the licensed capacity was changed to 0.5 tons or less
▲Upon becoming aware of this fact, the client immediately changed to six 0.5-ton tanks
▲The plaintiffs, using as a pretext the fact that tanks exceeding the permissible capacity had been installed, demanded that the supply unit price be lowered
▲Although the supply unit price was lowered, the plaintiffs reported the client for violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and the client was punished
▲The plaintiffs again incited the residents, sent a content-certified mail giving notice of termination of the gas supply contract, and then filed this lawsuit
The Certified Legal Notice Reply Sent by Daeryun's Cheongju Office
The plaintiffs in Daeryun's Cheongju office case stated that they had sent the client a content-certified mail giving notice of termination of the gas supply contract,
and Daeryun's Cheongju office sent a reply with the following contents.
▲The client's gas supply facilities, including the tanks, had been judged to be in conformity
▲Although the gas capacity was reduced due to the change in the relevant regulations, there was no problem with the supply to the plaintiffs
▲Heating gas was continuously supplied to the residents
▲Since the client did not commit any unlawful act against the residents, the termination of the gas supply contract is without grounds
3. Daeryun's Cheongju Office Sets Out to Defend the Client
Daeryun's Cheongju office set out to defend the client at the same time as sending the content-certified mail reply.
Daeryun's Cheongju Office Emphasizes the Improper Intent of the Plaintiffs in the Client's Case
The plaintiffs in the case of Daeryun's Cheongju office client made an unreasonable demand that the supply unit price be lowered, using as a pretext the fact that the client had installed gas tanks exceeding the permissible capacity.
When the client adjusted the supply unit price in response, the plaintiffs filed a complaint with the relevant agency, stating that the client had installed gas tanks exceeding the permissible capacity, and the client had already been punished.
Daeryun's Cheongju Office Emphasizes That the Plaintiffs' Argument That No Contract Was Entered Into Is False
The plaintiffs in the case of Daeryun's Cheongju office client argue that a contract was not entered into in the first place.
However, this is merely a ground the plaintiffs brought up after the fact, following the filing of this lawsuit.
Daeryun's Cheongju Office Emphasizes the Absence of Grounds for Contract Termination
The plaintiffs in the case of Daeryun's Cheongju office client argue that the contract should be terminated because the client violated the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, but this does not fall under the grounds set forth in the termination conditions within the contract.
It is true that the client mistakenly exceeded the permissible capacity and violated the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, but he was punished for this and, upon becoming aware of the violation, immediately changed the tank capacity.
Furthermore, even if there was a mistake, the mere fact of having been punished for a violation of administrative regulations does not give rise to a right of contract termination under civil law.
The client has already been supplying gas to the plaintiffs under lawful qualifications. Taking all of these points together, the plaintiffs' declaration of termination is unlawful, and there are no grounds for termination.
4. Daeryun's Cheongju Office Achieves a “Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Claim”
After hearing the defense of Daeryun's Cheongju office, the court rendered the judgment below.
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
The client of Daeryun's Cheongju office was at risk of having even the gas supply contract on which his livelihood depended terminated on the ground of a violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, but with the assistance of Daeryun's Cheongju office, the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims was achieved, and the plaintiffs were made to bear all of the litigation costs as well.
For this case, Daeryun's Cheongju office achieved the result through collaboration between the construction group's 🔗specialist attorney team and the civil group's specialist attorney team.
There are many situations in which one is unjustly sued. If you are in a situation similar to that of the client in this case, Daeryun's Cheongju office is available to assist you.
This content is based on actual case studies of Daeryun Law LLC with some adaptations, and the copyright belongs to our firm.
Unauthorized reproduction, duplication, or distribution and other copyright infringements may result in legal action under applicable laws.
