【Supplementary Part” No. 3 of the judgment of the first instance court No. 9, “C. On March 23, 2015, the appellate court of this case continued to commence the individual rehabilitation procedure against the Defendant, the Defendant was appointed as a custodian, and accordingly, the Plaintiff changed the lawsuit to the effect that it seeks confirmation of the rehabilitation claim on the date of pleading of the first instance trial.”

From the third side of the judgment of the first instance court, the following is added: “The Plaintiff’s individual rehabilitation claim against the Defendant is 55,965,190 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 1, 2013 to the date of full payment, which the Plaintiff seeks.”

【The part of the decision of the court of first instance (excluding paragraph (c)) 1 to 4. The contingent fees agreed upon in the instant delegation contract are “20% of the value of economic profits.” This amount is difficult to be deemed excessive in light of the practice of the contract for the retainer (1 million won) or the ordinary contingent fees, and the reason why part of the first disposition of the Sungdong branch office and the first disposition of the original branch office are revoked ex officio is reasonable. In light of the facts indicated in the foregoing disposition for unjust enrichment collection, it is difficult to view that the statute of limitations expires easily to the extent that it is against the principle of good faith or the principle of equity. Thus, the contingent fees agreement cannot be deemed unduly excessive to the extent that it is against the principle of good faith or the principle of equity.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.