2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On March 29, 1988, the Plaintiff is an attorney-at-law belonging to the Seoul Local Bar Association, who is operating a law office after registering as an attorney-at-law.

B. On December 7, 2015, the Korean Bar Association Disciplinary Committee recognized that the following Plaintiff’s act with respect to the Plaintiff constitutes grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, thereby violating the duty to maintain dignity as an attorney-at-law.

On March 2013, the Plaintiff did not prepare and return a letter of commitment to return KRW 13 million out of the amount received on May 20, 2013, which was requested to return the commission fees, to E by July 20, 2013, even though it was paid the commission fees for the legal resolution of the illegal stay cases against B, C, and D, which were protected by Chinese illegal aliens, around March 2013.

C. While recognizing the fact that the Plaintiff agreed to return KRW 13 million to E, the Plaintiff, instead of the above return agreement, filed an objection to disciplinary action against the Defendant on the ground that the F attorney-at-law extinguished the obligation to return fees pursuant to the refund agreement on the grounds that the obligation to return fees was extinguished by the defense of the criminal case, such as E, etc. in lieu of the above return agreement, and filed an objection under the 2016 Defense No. 4. However, on August 26, 2016, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s objection on the ground that the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff was recognized and that the disciplinary action is appropriate.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision”). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff alleged that he/she had become aware of the H Association representative I and the Director General J while working as the president of the G organization. On March 2013, 2013, J requested cancellation of protective measures against three Chinese nationals who were protected in the Immigration Control Office, and the Plaintiff determined the commission fee of KRW 23 million.