1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to the rehabilitation cases against the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs entered into a delegation contract with the Defendant that stipulates that the Plaintiff A shall pay KRW 15,000,000 for the retainers and KRW 30,000 for the Plaintiff Limited Liability Company B (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) and that the contingent fees shall not be separately provided (hereinafter “instant delegation contract”). At that time, the Plaintiffs paid the full retainers to the Defendant.

B. On November 2, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for rehabilitation with the Jeonju District Court on behalf of the Plaintiff Company (former District Court 2015 Mahap101), but the said court rendered a ruling that the rehabilitation procedures with respect to the Plaintiff Company should be abolished on the ground that the debtor’s liquidation value is obviously higher than the continuous corporate value on February 18, 2016.

In addition, on December 9, 2015, the Defendant applied for rehabilitation to the same court on behalf of the Plaintiff A (the Jeonju District Court 2015dan101 case), but the above court decided on May 20, 2016 that the rehabilitation procedure against the Plaintiff was abolished on the ground that the debtor’s liquidation value is obvious that it is higher than the continuous corporate value.

C. After the decision to discontinue the above rehabilitation procedures was rendered, the Defendant returned KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiffs.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional number), substantial facts to this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s claim 1) The Defendant had promised to normalize the management of the Plaintiff Company through the rehabilitation case, thereby deceiving the Plaintiffs, and accepted the case on the condition of authorization of rehabilitation. The Plaintiffs incurred damages such as commission fees, court deposit in the rehabilitation procedure, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to tort or nonperformance of obligation. 2) Considering the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s rehabilitation case, the progress of the case after the acceptance of the case, and the difficulty of the Defendant’s business performance, the Defendant