3. Of the total litigation costs, 90% is borne by the Plaintiff. 10% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. The part concerning the payment of money under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

A. On March 3, 2017, the Plaintiff entrusted the Defendant, who is an attorney-at-law, with the litigation of unjust enrichment case No. 2016Na36896, Seoul Northern District Court, and the Defendant consented thereto. The Plaintiff paid KRW 1.1 million as remuneration to the Defendant on the same day according to the delegation contract.

B. The defendant submitted a letter of delegation to the above court on March 5, 2017 and examined the records of the above case. On March 20, 2017, at the same time, requested the plaintiff to answer and submit necessary data about questions, and at the same time, sent two pages to the defendant's legal opinion about the performance of the lawsuit in the future. At around 18:08 of the same day, the plaintiff sent a reply letter to the defendant (the records examined by the defendant are as shown in attached Table 1, and the contents of the statement sent by the plaintiff and the defendant are as shown in attached Table 2 (the plaintiff sent a reply letter to the defendant on the last day sent by the defendant). However, the plaintiff and the defendant paid the above statement of resignation to the above court on March 3, 2017 (the above statement of unjust enrichment to the defendant) and the defendant's return of unjust enrichment to the plaintiff at the time of the above request for return of unjust enrichment to the plaintiff's own fee per 7 hours per annum or termination of the contract.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1-1 through 1-4, 2-1, Eul 1, 1-2, 2, 3, 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Since the plaintiff and the defendant unilaterally terminated the above delegation contract, the full amount of remuneration and damages for delay paid by the plaintiff must be refunded or paid.

B. Defendant

1) The above delegation contract was terminated by agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

2) If the amount of remuneration corresponding to the Defendant’s duties is calculated according to the “the hourly rate of remuneration determined by the Defendant” after the conclusion of the above delegation contract, the amount of remuneration to be returned to the Plaintiff by the Defendant is 1,115,000 won as indicated in the following table. Thus, there is no amount of remuneration to be returned to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

3. Determination

A. Whether the above delegation contract is terminated

In the course of sending and sending notes to the above case of unjust enrichment, the facts of dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant are as seen earlier. According to the evidence Nos. 4-2 and 4-3, the plaintiff would like to terminate the appointment contract by directly finding out "on the part of the defendant at the face of time" at around 11:48 March 21, 2017, and on the part of the defendant at around 11:52 on the same day, the defendant's regular settlement of accounts to the plaintiff at around 11:52 on the same day." The defendant's regular settlement of accounts to the plaintiff will be sent to the plaintiff as a main day to the plaintiff at around 18:28 on the same day. In light of the above, it is reasonable to conclude that the plaintiff's refusal to do so, and the plaintiff's intention to terminate the contract has not been agreed upon by the plaintiff and the defendant's above 201.

B. If Article 6(4) of the above delegation contract provides that the amount of remuneration corresponding to the defendant's work performed by the defendant is terminated under the above delegation contract, "the hourly rate of remuneration determined by the defendant" shall be calculated according to the "hour rate of the defendant's work performed by the defendant, and if there is any difference when the defendant deducts the amount of remuneration paid by the defendant from the amount of remuneration paid by the defendant, the difference shall be refunded to the plaintiff. According to the whole records and arguments, the number 1 to 4, and 7 of the money indicated in the corresponding column of the above table, which the defendant claims that the amount of remuneration corresponding to the defendant's work performed by the defendant is justified, shall not be justified, and the number 5 and 6 shall not be justified, and the remaining 10,000 won shall not be justified because the above delegation contract is justified only after the conclusion of the above delegation contract, and considering that the above delegation contract is an electronic litigation case, the amount of remuneration cannot be deemed as being required to be prepared and submitted by the Association for 10 minutes or more than 10 minutes of the above delegation contract.

Based on these judgments, 895,000 won (=480,000 won + 120,000 won + 160,000 won + 80,000 won + 50,000 won + 50,000 won + 50,000 won + 50,000 won) if the value-added tax is added, which is 984,00 won [=895,000 won + (895,000 won + 5,000 won) + 10% if the Defendant deducts the amount of remuneration received by the Defendant from the amount of remuneration (i.e., 116,100,000 won + 984,00 won)]. It is a theory of lawsuit.

The defendant shall refund or pay to the plaintiff 116,00 won among the remuneration that the plaintiff received from the plaintiff under the delegation contract as above and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from March 22, 2017, which is the day following the day on which the above delegation contract is terminated until September 12, 2018, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute as to the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining part shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance partially different conclusions are unfair, it shall be revoked, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay the above amount recognized by this court, and since the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, the plaintiff's remaining appeal shall be dismissed as

Judges Suspension Line

Judges Han Jae-sung

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.