사취금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff “five million won of the fees for appointment of D attorney-at-law” by June 14, 201, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the agreed amount of five million won and damages for delay.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant’s assertion and the Plaintiff prepared a letter of claim for the reimbursement of KRW 5 million with the attorney’s fees to be refunded, but thereafter, the attorney’s attendance and pleading was made in the examination on the quality of warrant. As such, the said letter of claim for payment was invalidated.
B. According to the results of the fact-finding inquiry reply with respect to the statement No. 2-3 of evidence No. 2, and the court of first instance, the court of first instance, the court of first instance, after the preparation of the above payment rejection, and the defendant, on September 23, 2011, the fact that the F lawyer of the E Law Firm to which the defendant belongs was present at the court for the defense of the network A is acknowledged. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the statement No. 2-2 of evidence No. 2 and the whole pleadings, the above facts alone are merely the above facts, and the plaintiff again requested the defendant to appoint the lawyer again with the above payment rejection, notwithstanding the above payment rejection, regardless of
It is insufficient to deem that such consent was given or accepted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
① He anticipated that his defense would be entrusted by G attorney-at-law of the E law firm, and paid an appointment fee, but he was absent on the above date with knowledge that D-at-law who was not expected on the date of the warrant examination would be expected to be present.
② Accordingly, the Plaintiff, a son of A or A, sought the return of the appointment fee to the Defendant, and the Defendant drafted a letter of payment in the instant case, purporting that the Plaintiff would return KRW 5 million of the appointment fee of D Attorney by June 14, 2011.
(3) After that, A has again requested the defendant to appoint a defense counsel.