1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. Basic facts - The Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against Nonparty C in relation to the installation of boiler at the Plaintiff’s home.

(hereinafter “previous Lawsuit”). - In the first instance court (Seoul District Court Branch Branch D) of the previous lawsuit, only part of the Plaintiff’s claim was accepted.

Although the plaintiff appealed against this, the judgment dismissing the appeal was pronounced.

(Seoul District Court E). Although the Plaintiff re-appealed, the dismissal of the appeal was pronounced.

(F) F. The defendant was an attorney-at-law at the first instance court of the previous lawsuit.

In the second instance of the previous lawsuit, G (Attorney H, I, J, hereinafter referred to as the "G") was the plaintiff's attorney.

- The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against G and H claiming damages against G and H by asserting that they failed to perform their duty of care as a legal representative, which was lost in the previous lawsuit, but the judgment dismissing the lawsuit became final and conclusive.

(Seoul District Court Decision, Daegu District Court Decision, L L, Supreme Court Decision). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Eul evidence 2-1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not perform a litigation in the first instance court of the previous lawsuit and lost the Plaintiff.

Specifically, it did not properly dispute whether the Plaintiff consented to the installation of a heat tank of 3,000 L in advance.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the sum of KRW 3.4 million and the compensation for mental and physical damage KRW 8.4 million (and damages for delay).

(b) Determination (1) If an attorney-at-law loses an inappropriate performance of a litigation case delegated to him/her, it is recognized that he/she did not exercise ordinary care in the performance of the litigation in light of the average attorney-at-law, and the attorney-at-law paid ordinary attention.