징계처분 취소 청구의 소
1. The Defendant’s decision to dismiss an objection against the Plaintiff on November 24, 2017 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 10, 1997, the Plaintiff registered as an attorney-at-law belonging to the organization B and changed its affiliation to C on February 1, 2004, and thereafter changed its affiliation to B on September 6, 2005, and is currently performing attorney-at-law duties in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “Law Firm Limited Liability E”.
B. On December 28, 2015, the president of the FF Association requested the FF Association Attorney Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter “FF Disciplinary Committee”) to commence a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff, on July 19, 2010, entered into a contract with G and 7 debt collection cases and five civil litigation cases at KRW 10 million, and the contingent fees at KRW 20% of the winning amount, on the contrary, on the grounds that the Plaintiff breached the duty of good faith under Article 42 of the FF Association Rules, on the following grounds: (a) one of the delegated cases was partially carried out, and the remainder of four civil litigation cases was not carried out; and (b) the Plaintiff violated the duty of good faith under Article 42 of the FF Association Rules.”
On July 18, 2016, the FDisciplinary Committee rendered a disciplinary decision (hereinafter “instant disciplinary decision”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff has committed the aforementioned misconduct, and this constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith under Article 42 of the Regulations of the FSC.” However, G was erroneous for a long time to require the Plaintiff to proceed with the remaining cases, and the Plaintiff’s return of KRW 5 million out of KRW 10 million that the Plaintiff received the retainer payment constitutes an element for normal participation.”
C. On November 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the above disciplinary decision with the Defendant, and the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s objection on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s suspected facts of disciplinary action are recognized, and the said disciplinary decision is difficult to be deemed to have excessively exceeded the discretionary power of disciplinary action.”
(hereinafter referred to as the "decision on Dismissal of this case"). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, and all pleadings.