2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

(a) Sentence of a judgment in the first instance;

(1) On June 18, 2007, Nonparty 1 filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 2 and Appointors 2 with the Seoul Central District Court for a promissory note claim. The Defendant jointly filed a claim against the Plaintiff for payment of the amount at the rate of 25% per annum from August 22, 1987 to the date of full payment.

(2) On June 10, 2008, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment on June 10, 2008 that "the defendants jointly pay to the plaintiff 1,364,117,297 won and 269,273,482 won with interest of 25% per annum from January 16, 2008 to the date of full payment" (hereinafter "the first instance judgment") that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,364,117,297 won and 269,273,482 won," and both the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the designated parties appealed against the first instance judgment.

B. Conclusion of delegation contracts

(1) On August 4, 2008, the Defendant (Appointed Party), who is the father of Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 2, entered into a contract to delegate the above appellate case to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant delegation contract”) as the representative of Nonparty 2 and Appointed 2, who was a deceptive interest and the representative of Nonparty 2, and entered into an agreement with the following contents (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

The vote cases contained in the main text of this case: Defendant 2 and one other party to a promissory note shall agree to delegate his agent affairs for the lawsuit not later than the rendering of the judgment of the second instance on the case in question to ear and to comply with the following matters. The retainer shall be paid 10,000 won (excluding value-added tax) with the retainer of the entrusted affairs under Article 2 (Advance Payment): Provided, That no request for return shall be made even if any reason such as the cancellation of delegation has occurred; the stamp, delivery charge, recording and copying expenses, expenses for verification and appraisal, travel expenses, guarantee deposit, execution expenses and other expenses necessary for the handling of the entrusted affairs under Article 3 (Expenses) shall be immediately paid as ear’s request. When the delegated affairs are successful, 2.5% of the reduced amount shall be paid at his own discretion to ear for the waiver or withdrawal of delegation, or with the consent of the other party to the waiver or acceptance of delegation. In the following cases, the principal shall be paid at his own discretion:

(2) On August 4, 2008, Nonparty 3 paid KRW 11,000,000 to the Plaintiff on August 4, 2008.

C. Judgment of the appellate court

On September 7, 2011, Seoul High Court rendered a judgment of 2008Na5973 (hereinafter “the judgment of the appellate court prior to the remand”) that “the part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and all the claims of the Plaintiff corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.” Nonparty 1 filed an appeal against the judgment of the appellate court prior to the remand.

(d) Payment of partial contingent remuneration;

On April 23, 2012, Nonparty 3 paid KRW 20,000,00 of the success fee to the Plaintiff.

E. Judgment of the appellate court before remanding

On February 15, 2013, the Supreme Court sentenced the case to Seoul High Court. "The case is reversed, and it is remanded to the Seoul High Court."

F. The plaintiff's legal representative after remanding the appeal

After returning according to the instant delegation contract, the Plaintiff is represented by Nonparty 2 and 2 in Seoul High Court 2013Na17591, the appellate court, the appellate court, on behalf of Nonparty 2 and 2.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Determination on the success of delegated affairs

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff conducted a lawsuit at the appellate court upon delegation by the Appointor 2 and the defendant (appointed parties), and succeeded to the delegated affairs by the appellate court prior to the remanding to the full favor of the plaintiff.

Inasmuch as Nonparty 2 and Appointed 2 were fully reduced by KRW 1,609,414,373, which is the date the appellate court rendered a judgment prior to remanding, until September 7, 2011, the amount of KRW 1,609,414,373, which is the date the appellate court rendered a judgment prior to remanding, the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Appointed 2 shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 44,25,235,359, the amount of which is 2.5% of the amount to be reduced as the contingent fee cost pursuant to the delegation contract of this case, plus KRW 44,258,894, the amount of value-added tax 4,258,894, and damages for delay from September 8, 2011 to April 23, 2012, subtracting KRW 20,641,226,200,000,000,03284,329

(2) Determination

The Plaintiff and the Defendant (Appointed Party) did not clearly agree on the criteria for the “when the delegation contract of this case was successful” in concluding the delegation contract of this case; when the appellate court’s judgment was reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court’s judgment, the attorney’s right of attorney of the appellate court prior to remand was remanded to the appellate court under the principle of representation of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 62Da792, Jan. 31, 1963; 84Hu102, May 28, 1985; 98Ra168, Jul. 29, 198; 2008; 200Ra168, Feb. 29, 1998; 300Da168, Feb. 29, 1998; 300Da1008, Feb. 29, 200).

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion based on the success of delegated affairs by the judgment of the appellate court prior to remand is without merit without further review.

B. Determination as to whether Defendant (Appointed Party) is obligated to pay contingent fees

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant (Appointed Party) entered into the instant delegation agreement as a party, and additionally signed the instant agreement with the meaning of confirming the obligation to pay contingent fees on August 4, 2008. As such, the Defendant (Appointed Party) should pay the Plaintiff the contingent fees jointly and severally with the Appointed 2.

(2) Determination

Only with the descriptions of Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant (appointed party) entered into the instant delegation contract as a party, or jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the appointed party 2 to pay the contingent remuneration, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1-2 of this case, the defendant (appointed party) stated in the agreement of this case on August 4, 2008 as "party: defendant 2 and one other; defendant 2 and one other; defendant 1 signed the agreement of this case on August 24, 2010 at the plaintiff's request and stated the date in the blank of Article 5 (Public Remuneration Remuneration) of the agreement of this case. The agreement of this case was written separately in the bottom, but the "joint guarantor" was written in the blank space. In light of the fact that the plaintiff is a law firm specializing in attorney-at-law who is a lawyer, and the method and meaning of joint and several sureties, etc. of the party's entry, joint and several sureties's agreement of this case as the representative of the party (appointed party) and the party to this case's agreement of this case can not be deemed as the party to the contract of this case's success and payment agreement of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion against the defendant (appointed party) is without merit in this respect.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List of Appointed]

Judges Long-term Crimes