beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.
2...
Reasons
1. The reasons for the entry of this case by the court of first instance are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the use of each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. As such, this shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The 18th to 21th of the 6th one shall be done in the following manner:
(E) The Defendant asserts that D attorney-at-law was aware of the Defendant as the same legal entity as C when the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of contingent fees after the instant conciliation was completed, and that D attorney-at-law was aware of the Defendant as the same legal entity as C, and that the evidence Nos. 12 (post bag sign) and Nos. 13 and 14 (each text message was submitted, but the evidence No. 12 was merely stated as “A former Law Firm C” in the column of “receiving” while the Defendant sent the mail to the Plaintiff, and that the evidence Nos. 13 and 14 was merely about the Plaintiff’s opening of business, and it is difficult to recognize that D attorney-at-law was accused of the Defendant as if the Plaintiff were the same legal entity as C, and there is no
“”
(b) 1 to 3 parallels 7, 8 and 9 shall be carried out in the following manner:
(2) According to the facts acknowledged prior to the occurrence of the obligation to pay contingent fees, the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid 10,000,000 won to the Plaintiff in the event that the dismissal of the Defendant of the Nonghyup Bank becomes null and void due to a judgment, mediation, etc. through the delegation contract of this case, and separately agreed to pay the Plaintiff the contingent fees of 13% (the value-added tax is a separate amount) of the Defendant’s money paid to the Defendant in the instant lawsuit. Accordingly, the instant conciliation was concluded on the premise that the dismissal of the Defendant of the Nonghyup Bank against the Defendant was null and void. Accordingly, the Defendant received 470,29,236 won from the Nonghyup Bank as honorary retirement allowances and retirement consolation money, and thus the Defendant received another special exception.