약정금
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 136,00,000 and the interest thereon from January 30, 2016 to the date of full payment.
1. On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff is a law firm that mainly performs the duties of attorney-at-law. The Defendants concluded a delegation contract with the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap9350 (hereinafter “instant delegation contract”) on the part of the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff, setting the retainer fee of KRW 10 million as the winning amount, and the contingent fee of KRW 7% as the winning amount. The Plaintiff performed a lawsuit on behalf of the Defendants pursuant to the delegation contract and concluded a delegation contract with the Seoul Central District Court on September 17, 2014. The Plaintiff was jointly and severally and severally rendered a favorable judgment with the Nonparty D, the other party to the said lawsuit, and the ScarF&D Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the Defendants did not pay the retainer and contingent fee to the Plaintiff, and there is no dispute between the parties or between the entire arguments.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to pay the total amount of KRW 130 million in advance and the contingent fees of KRW 126 million in accordance with the delegation contract of this case (1.8 billion x 7%) and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 30, 2016 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff, after the end of the litigation agency, as the Plaintiff seeks from January 30, 2016, the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order.
2. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendants did not conclude a delegation contract with Defendant B.
(2) In addition to the instant delegation case, in addition to the criminal complaint case, a contingent fee was agreed on the premise that the prosecution against D was filed at the same time with respect to the criminal complaint case that was pending against Nonparty D, and since the prosecution was not filed against D, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s delegated affairs were successful, and the instant delegation case also pertains to the instant case.