성공보수금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
(a)Any of the following facts may be admitted either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole to each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including a case where there is a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings:
1) In the Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Gahap6864 (201j4494) (2011j4494) where a law firm Dr.D. sought contingent fees against the Defendant, the Plaintiff represented the Defendant, and on February 7, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant the contingent fees at KRW 1,359,657,534, and KRW 1,300,000,000 per annum from June 11, 2011 to the day of full payment. The Defendant appealed against the above judgment. The Plaintiff also represented the Defendant in Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na25090, which is the appellate court. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the Defendant the contingent fees at KRW 20% of the amount claimed by Dr.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contingent fee arrangement”). On August 27, 2012, at the above appellate trial, the conciliation of the court of the lawsuit was concluded that the Defendant shall pay the law firm multilateral to pay the contingent fee of KRW 1,00,000,000.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the above appellate court held that the defendant's liability to pay for the future law firm of the Republic of Korea was KRW 1,674,506,849 [the amount equivalent to the interest for delay until August 27, 2012, = 314,849,315 won ( = 1,300,000 x 442/365 x 0.2/45 x 0.0
[) Since 1,00,000 won has been reduced to 674,506,849 won from 1,000,000 won, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 134,901,369 won equivalent to 20% ( = 674,506,849 won x 0.2) and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances in accordance with the success fee agreement in this case.
2. Determination as to the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant is a law firm, which serves as the basis for the amount of success fees as stipulated in the contingent fee agreement of this case.