C had filed a lawsuit for a loan claim of KRW 90 million from D and two other persons on August 18, 2015, but the husband appointed Defendant B as a legal representative and won all the first, second, and third trials upon introduction of Defendant E-friendly defendant Eul.

1. Defendant B’s attempted to commit fraud on November 17, 2016 filed an application with the Seoul Western District Court for the determination of litigation costs related to the above loan claim against the victim D, etc. on behalf of the above C on behalf of the victim, and the defendant received a total of KRW 11 million ( KRW 4.4 million in the first instance court, KRW 4.4 million in the third instance court, KRW 2.2 million in the third instance court) with the attorney’s fees, and did not separately agree on contingent fees, the above received amount falls short of the standard for attorney’s fees to be recognized pursuant to the lawsuit (Supreme Court Regulations) (see Supreme Court Regulations 4,525,275 won in each instance), and instead, the defendant did not receive a total of KRW 13 million ( KRW 5 million in the second instance court, KRW 5 million in the second instance court, KRW 3 million in the third instance court, KRW 5 million in the total amount, KRW 1.5 million in the court’s fees, KRW 5 million in the amount of KRW 1.5 million in the court’s fees (2.5 million).

2. Defendants B and C filed a complaint against Defendant B and C on the ground of “a claim excessive attorney’s fees at the time of filing an application for the determination of the amount of litigation costs” around May 2017, on the ground that Defendant B and C’s aiding and abetting evidence fabrication, and Defendant A’s fabrication of evidence was an attempted litigation fraud.

Accordingly, even though Defendant B did not have concluded a contingent fee agreement with C, the fact that the actual amount of attorney fees was revealed is the attorney who received the contingent fee in the investigative agency.