One Law Partners, LLC successfully represented a trust company acting as a project administrator in litigation brought by service providers seeking payment of outstanding service fees arising from an urban redevelopment project.

The court dismissed all claims asserted by the plaintiffs. This decision is significant because it confirms that a project administrator's status alone does not give rise to liability for service fees owed to third parties.

1. Case Overview

The plaintiffs, service providers that had entered into service agreements with a redevelopment association established for the purpose of implementing an urban redevelopment project, filed suit seeking payment of outstanding service fees.

Following a resolution adopted at a temporary general meeting of the association, the defendant trust company was appointed as the project administrator.

The plaintiffs alleged that they held claims for unpaid service fees and argued that the association possessed a right to demand payment of project expenses from the trust company.

Based on this theory, the plaintiffs sought payment directly from the trust company.

2. Key Issues

The central issue in the case was whether the plaintiffs could establish the existence of a subrogated right against the trust company.

Under the project administration services agreement, the defendant trust company was responsible for performing project implementation tasks on behalf of the association, including financing, fund management, and disbursement of various redevelopment project expenses.

Based on those contractual provisions, the plaintiffs argued that the association had a right to demand payment of redevelopment project expenses from the trust company and that the plaintiffs could exercise such right through subrogation.

3. Legal Strategy

Attorneys Eun-young Jung and Seong-hoon Park of One Law Partners, LLC strongly argued that no subrogated right existed against the trust company.

The attorneys demonstrated that, although the project agreements addressed financing and fund-disbursement functions, they did not provide that the trust company was required to disburse funds merely upon the association's request.

Accordingly, the defense argued that the association had no right to compel the trust company to make payments to a particular creditor in connection with redevelopment project expenses.

The attorneys further established that: