(2) In the original judgment, the part against Defendant 1 among the original judgment was partially revoked, and the original judgment is altered as follows.

(A) Defendant 1 shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,500,000 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from January 9, 1968 to the full payment.

(B) The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant are dismissed.

(3) The costs of appeal between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 are assessed against the plaintiff, and all costs of appeal between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 are assessed against the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2 equally.

(4) A provisional execution may be effected on the monetary payment portion under Paragraph (2) above.

The defendant et al. shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 7,500,000 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from January 9, 1968 to the date of full payment.

The first and second courts tried to declare the judgment that all the costs of lawsuit are borne by the defendant, etc. and provisional execution.

On March 20, 1967, Defendant 1 entrusted the Plaintiff with the argument of the appellate court of the Defendant case against Defendant 2, and when Defendant 2 was sentenced to a cancellation of physical restraint due to bail, etc. and exemption from sentence in the appellate court, Defendant 1 agreed to pay 10 million won as a contingent reward. Under the agreement, the Plaintiff received the ruling of permission for bail as of April 4, 1967 by handling the entrusted affairs so far as Defendant 2’s defense counsel, and thus, Defendant 2 was removed from the Seoul High Court ruling (67No90) on January 8, 1968, and Defendant 2 delegated the same order to the Plaintiff to pay 10 million won as a successful bail, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 agreed to pay 10 million won to the Plaintiff, and Defendant 2 agreed to pay 10 million won as a contingent bail immediately after the suspension of execution of 3 years, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 agreed to pay 200 million won to the Plaintiff.

(2) Therefore, first of all, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 was examined, Gap evidence Nos. 11 through 13 (consuling gushes), Gap evidence Nos. 15 (decision), Gap evidence Nos. 16 (Defense Counsel Report), Gap evidence Nos. 17 (Report of Reasons for Appeal), Eul evidence Nos. 18 (Report of Reasons for Appeal Change), Eul evidence Nos. 19 through 22, Eul evidence Nos. 19 through 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 22 (each trial record), and defendant Nos. 19 to 3, and defendant Nos. 15 (No. 4 of the judgment of the court below), and since the facts charged against the defendant 2 were relatively less favorable to the defendant 1's defendant 2's defendant 2's defendant 1's defendant 2's defendant 2's defendant 2's defendant 1 and his defense counsel at the appellate court's judgment, it seems that the defendant 2 conspired with the defendant 2's defendant No. 1 and 4.7.156.7.

② In order to appoint the Plaintiff as Defendant 2’s defense counsel, Defendant 1 agreed to accept the Plaintiff’s oral argument in the appellate court on March 20, 1967 by mutual agreement with the Plaintiff, in confrontation with the Plaintiff on March 20, 1967, in order to appoint the Plaintiff as Defendant 2’s defense counsel, but the commencement amount shall be KRW 5 million, and when Defendant 2 withdraws from the court on bail and the physical detention is rescinded, Defendant 1 agreed to pay a contingent honorarium amount of KRW 10 million, which is a double the retainer amount. At that time, Defendant 1 asked Defendant 2 not to know the fact that the Plaintiff was appointed as a defense counsel for Defendant 2.

③ On the following day after the agreement was reached by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was acting for Nonparty 3, who supported the Plaintiff’s business at the time, and the Defendant’s office received KRW 5 million from Defendant 1 in advance pursuant to the above agreement, and demanded that the contingent fee agreement be written. However, the Defendant refused to the effect that if the agreement was written, the Defendant’s appointment of the Plaintiff as his defense counsel could be disclosed, but the honorarium continued to pay the Plaintiff according to the agreement.

④ As of March 21, 1967, the Plaintiff sent his defense counsel to Seoul High Court and reviewed the case at the same time, and applied for the permission of release on bail on April 4, 1967. Defendant 2 was permitted to release on the day.

⑤ After that, Defendant 2 was found to be guilty of the lower judgment on the ground that Defendant 2’s status in the above appellate court was merely a vice-chief of duty and did not have a position to be a principal offender. Defendant 2 submitted the appellate brief stating the factual and legal opinion that Defendant 2 was not guilty. Defendant 1 was sufficient to dismiss Nonparty 5, who was an executive director of the above company at the time of the above appellate court, on the ground that Defendant 2 was only sentenced to Defendant 2’s sentence against Defendant 2, and thus, there is no need to assert the allegation of innocence. Accordingly, Defendant 2 revoked the grounds for appeal and filed a statement to the effect that Nonparty 2, a joint counsel of Defendant 2, would invoke the grounds for appeal

④ On December 5, 1967, December 11, 1967, and December 26 of the same year, the Plaintiff is an attorney-at-law present at the date of the above appellate trial on December 26, 1968, and the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 is reversed on January 8, 1968 (the main reason for reversal is the non-party 4, and Defendant 2 decided that the main reason for reversal is the non-party 4, while Defendant 2 knowingly arranges the sale of the tariff evasion item), by the ruling of the appellate court on January 8, 1968, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment for three years, suspension of execution, five years, fine 10,000 won, and then the judgment of the court below and the non-party 5's witness may be recognized as having become final and conclusive by the ruling of the Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal thereafter, and there is no evidence to believe that some of the testimony of the court below and the non-party 5 witness are prepared for each evidence.

Therefore, the plaintiff's success in the case of this case as an attorney-at-law. Accordingly, the defendant 1 should pay 10 million won, which is an amount equal to the start-up amount, as remuneration under the above contract with the plaintiff. Even if the defendant 1 is a company running domestic flowing water, the amount of this case's fee agreement cannot be too excessive because it is based on the contents of the above criminal case accepted by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's efforts and expenses contributed to the plaintiff, etc., and considering all circumstances such as the circumstances leading the plaintiff to appoint the plaintiff as a counsel, it is reasonable to pay 5 million won, which is equivalent to the start-up amount, so the part of the agreement in excess is null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da2722, Feb. 29, 72).

However, as part of this case's remuneration, the Plaintiff received from Defendant 1 the amount of KRW 1 million immediately after the release of Defendant 2 with the permission for release on bail, and KRW 500,000 after the judgment of the appellate court on January 1, 1968, and again, Defendant 1 should pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 2.5 million after deducting the total amount of KRW 2.5 million and delay damages until the date of full payment after the judgment of the appellate court.

(3) Next, although the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 was examined to the effect that the defendant 1 agreed to jointly pay the plaintiff's remuneration to the defendant 2, the plaintiff's leader had the result of the examination of the plaintiff himself consistent with this, it was not a situation to enter into an agreement on the remuneration, which is a monetary issue at the time immediately after the defendant 2 was released from the military bail, as at the time, after the defendant 2 was released from the military bail, and it seems that there was no economic power to pay the remuneration with the amount of money, and as seen above, it was not necessary for the defendant 2 to jointly and severally agree to pay the remuneration amount in the case of which the defendant 1 was decided to pay under the responsibility of the defendant 1. If the defendant 2 agreed to pay the same grade, it would have been likely to have been active in gender culture, and there was no agreement to do so, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff 2, the plaintiff's remaining claim against the defendant 2 should be further justified.

(4) Thus, Defendant 1 is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above amount of KRW 2,500,00 and damages for delay at the rate of five percent per annum of the Civil Procedure Act from January 9, 1968 to the full payment date. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is justified to the extent of the same recognition, the remainder of the claim is dismissed, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 2 is dismissed, and the claim against Defendant 2 is dismissed in an unfair manner. Since the part against Defendant 2 in the original judgment is the same as this conclusion, the appeal against this part is dismissed, and the part against Defendant 1 among the original judgment against the Plaintiff was partially concluded, it is modified as prescribed in Paragraph 2 of the above Article, and the litigation cost between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 is assessed against the Plaintiff, and Article 96 and Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply to all the litigation costs between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1, and a provisional execution declaration shall be permitted. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han Man-Shan (Presiding Judge) Lee Man-soon