1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Around March 2016, the Plaintiffs, the father or mother of the victims of humidifier disinfectant, entered into an agreement with the Defendant, an attorney-at-law, to delegate the claim for damages related to the said damage on the condition that 15% of the economic profit value is paid as contingent fees without starting the contract.

(hereinafter “instant delegation contract”). (b)

On April 11, 2016, the victims of humidifier disinfectant, including the plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit for the compensation of damage with the Seoul Central District Court 2016Kahap520183 against the defendant, a limited liability company, as his/her agent, and on May 2, 2016, the lawsuit was pending and announced on May 2, 2016 that the representative director of the Rook-si would officially formulate and present the plan for the compensation of the victims of humidifier disinfectant, and the court decided to refer the case to the conciliation return as the same court 2016Ma42962, May 27, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as "the case of this case").

1) On June 26, 2016, 201, Ro-si proposed the first proposal to pay KRW 1,000,000,000 in a lump sum for the death of a child of a child. On September 2016, 2016, Ro-si provided each of the Plaintiffs with compensation for damages of KRW 1,00,000,000 and legal expenses equivalent to the contingent fee rate of KRW 15% under the delegation contract of this case (hereinafter “instant compensation”), and the portion of the legal expenses is “the legal expenses of this case.”

(2) After that, around October 2016, Plaintiff A paid the contingent fee to the Defendant; Plaintiff A paid KRW 159,508,393; Plaintiff B paid KRW 161,59,563; and Plaintiff C paid KRW 163,62,158.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 8 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant delegation contract is concluded with the Defendant under the circumstances where the Plaintiff had no litigation experience.