A. The Plaintiff determined 4.4 million won (including value-added tax) and 5% of the winning amount of the winning amount in the case of claiming consolation money from the Defendant (Seoul Won District Court 2014Dhap70) and the case of provisional attachment, and accepted the Defendant’s reimbursement of the expenses incurred in the lawsuit. Since the instant case was completed in part of the Defendant, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement for winning amount, retainer amount, and litigation costs under the above delegation agreement, the Plaintiff sought compensation for winning amount, KRW 17,952,870, and damages for delay calculated by subtracting two million won paid by the Defendant from the sum of the winning amount, retainer amount, and litigation costs.

B. The Defendant asserted for consolation money and the principal case of the case to the Plaintiff, and the case of winning in the case of winning in the case of winning in the amount exceeding 3.3 million won (including value-added tax) and the case of winning in the case of winning in the case of exceeding 500 million won only delegated the case to the Plaintiff by fixing the amount exceeding 500 million won as 5%, and the Plaintiff cannot accept the Plaintiff’

2. Determination as to the claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the witness’s testimony in the contents of delegation agreement No. 1 written evidence, the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined 4.4 million won (including value-added tax) and 5% of the winning amount of the winning amount of the case of consolation money claim and provisional seizure, and acknowledged the fact that the Defendant agreed to bear the expenses incurred during the lawsuit.

On the other hand, the defendant's assertion is not accepted because the witness D's testimony as shown in the defendant's argument is difficult to believe in consideration of the following points.

① Even based on the witness D’s testimony, the commission for the case on the merits is ordinarily causing 3.3 million won. In this case, including the provisional seizure case, and considering the fact that the Plaintiff first bears most of the costs in proceeding a lawsuit, it is difficult to deem that the commission was agreed to KRW 3.3 million even if considering the relationship between the witness D and the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant.

② Under the agreement on the evidence No. 1, “B” recognizes that the Defendant stated in the agreement, “B” is the same pen, and “this lawsuit is instituted with the same pen.”