(영문) 대구지방법원 2013.5.21.선고 2011가합13559 판결

2. The Defendant shall pay each Plaintiff the respective amount of money indicated in the separate sheet of the attached sheet with 5% interest per annum from February 18, 2012 to May 21, 2013, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiffs' remaining claims listed in the separate sheet are dismissed.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet of the plaintiffs the amount of money stated in the "request amount" in the separate sheet of the plaintiff and the amount calculated by 5% per annum from September 1, 201 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiffs are residents residing in the vicinity of the K-2 airfield located in Daegu Dong-gu, Dong-dong, etc.

As a result, at around 2005, 26,00 residents (hereinafter referred to as "the noise lawsuit of this case") filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the non-party to the Republic of Korea for mental suffering from noise from the takeoff and landing of the above airfield, and 26,628 residents (hereinafter referred to as "the noise lawsuit of this case") who won the lawsuit, and the defendant was delegated the power of attorney of the noise lawsuit of this case from the plaintiffs and performed the lawsuit as the attorney of the residents (62,682) including the plaintiffs.

B. The grounds for concluding and amending the Plaintiffs’ delegation agreement with the Defendant

00 Deposit was planning and promoting the instant noise lawsuit as a joint full-time representative of the residents suffering from nationwide aircraft noise, and on March 20, 201, prior to the instant noise lawsuit, there was a waiver of the lawsuit in the middle due to the delegation of noise lawsuit to other attorneys under the residents’ rights of the Dong-gu residents and the cost of appraisal, etc. Accordingly, around 2004, 00 deposit requested the defendant to find it and requested the defendant to accept the instant noise lawsuit, and the defendant also tried to comply with the said request to proceed with the procedure to be the number of the noise lawsuit in the instant case.

○ On July 21, 2004, the Defendant first held a briefing session for residents on the instant noise lawsuit at the place where more than 700 residents are gathered in the Daegu-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Do party.

○ On August 3, 2008, the next 00 table sent the documents to the 300 representatives of each Dong on August 3, 2008, with the title of the 'K-2 plenary session held by each Dong representative in relation to the noise damage compensation lawsuit for each Dong representative'. The above documents stipulate the date and time of the joint countermeasures meeting as the "8. 10 am on August 11, 2008", the target of the meeting as the "representative of each Dong-dong area (each Dong-dong group head)", the agenda as the "examination and confirmation of agreement, appointment and conclusion of the attorney-at-law, composition of the litigation representative and other matters for discussion".

00 on August 11, 2004, the deposit held a joint book meeting as above on the second floor of the Daegu-dong District District Court, Daegu-dong District Court 2, 2004. The above meeting concluded a delegation agreement with the defendant, 80 representative of Dong residents, Do Council Speaker, chairman of the Gu Council, chairman of the Gu Council noise specialization committee, etc. to delegate the power of attorney of the noise lawsuit of this case to the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "first agreement of this case"). The main contents of the first agreement of this case relating to this case are as follows.

1. The parties to the case (hereinafter referred to as "A") shall, with respect to the delegation of the agency work for an attorney-at-law (hereinafter referred to as "B") to the attorney-at-law, prepare a letter of agreement as follows and keep one copy of the agency work for the handling of delegated affairs; 2. The commencement fee for the attorney-at-law for the handling of delegated affairs shall be "0". 3. The rights and duties concerning stamp fees, service charges, records and history expenses, verification expenses, witness's daily expenses, daily travel expenses, travel expenses, guarantee money, execution expenses, and all other litigation costs (including attorney's fees) necessary for the handling of delegated affairs shall be borne by "B". However, noise appraisal expenses shall be borne by "A", but if "A" is not required due to unavoidable circumstances, "B" shall be borne by "B".

4. contingent fees. The success fees of “B” shall be 20% of the winning price at the time of termination of the lawsuit (no additional tax). (b) After the completion of the lawsuit, “B” shall be immediately paid to “A” the amount excluding the contingent fees set forth in paragraph (a). In the event that “A” is considered to be a winning case, “B” shall recognize the contingent fees agreed prior to the winning case. When the parties voluntarily consent to the waiver or recognition of a claim, compromise, withdrawal of a lawsuit, withdrawal or waiver of an appeal, withdrawal of an appeal by the other party’s appeal or withdrawal of appeal, “B” shall not raise an objection to the delegation contract at will on May 1, 200 if “B” has voluntarily rescinded or terminated due to reasons not attributable to “B.”

The above agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the first agreement") was accompanied by a list of 80 persons, including the names, addresses, contact numbers, etc. of residents, present at the time of the agreement, who participated in the agreement under the title "K-2 aircraft noise damage compensation lawsuit by the residents of the area B" among the residents of the area adjacent to the Daegu airfield B" in the party column (A), and signed and sealed the name of the resident in the column of the party (A) as the representative of the residents (A), while the name, address, contact number, etc. of the resident at the time of the agreement.

After the first agreement of this case, the other attorneys in the Daegu area also agreed to accept the noise lawsuit of this case, and there was controversy that the attorney's fees are somewhat high. On October 1, 2004, the defendant requested the defendant to reduce the attorney's fees by a certain amount. On October 1, 2004, the defendant attended the residents' public hearing held in relation to the noise lawsuit of this case with the Daegu Seo-gu Seo-gu, Daegu-gu, and then signed the agreement with the residents' public hearing held in relation to the noise lawsuit of this case. In response to the above continuous request as to the agreement on the success fees of 00 deposit and Dong-gu Council members, the "20% of the winning price of the first agreement of this case prepared by 00 deposit" was reduced to 15%. The specific provisions are as follows.

Paragraph 4 of Article 1.1. (3) of the Delegation Agreement of August 11, 2004 is amended as follows: The noise appraisal cost is borne by "B".2. paragraph 6 (4) of the Delegation Agreement of August 11, 2004. The success fee of "B" shall be 15% of the winning price (no additional tax exists).

○ However, after formulating the instant amendment agreement, the Defendant sent back to Seoul 00 copies of contact, and expressed his intention to talk about the complaint regarding the method of the public hearing and the level of attorney’s fees unilaterally determined at the time of the public hearing and to waive the lawsuit.

Accordingly, the 00 deposit, at the time, expressed the defendant's intent to deliver the defendant's above opinion to the Jeon Ho-il, who was the president of the Tong Ho-dong Association, and expressed his intention to waive his lawsuit, and the Jeon Ho-ho decided to enter into the second agreement of this case, which is deemed to be followed by the communication of the defendant's contact with the defendant from the 00 deposit, and again

On October 3, 2004, unlike the first agreement and the amended agreement of this case, the defendant made an amendment to the agreement on the successful remuneration and the cost bearing incurred in the lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as "the second agreement of this case") (hereinafter referred to as "the second agreement of this case"), and made a Daegu and 00 entrustment and the final agreement of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the second agreement of this case"), and as in the first agreement of this case, signed and sealed the second agreement to the representative of residents. After the above agreement, under the title "the representative of the resident who delegated K-2 aircraft noise damage compensation lawsuit", a list stating the name, address, contact number, etc. of 87 residents was attached (Evidence 3-2 of the evidence of this case), which is not the list of the representatives of the residents who actually attended at the time, but only the previous list prepared at the time of the first agreement of this case (Evidence 1-2 of the evidence of this case), and the main contents of the agreement of this case are added as follows.

1. A party (hereinafter referred to as "A") shall agree with respect to the above case with respect to the delegation of agency work to an attorney-at-law final citizen (hereinafter referred to as "B") as follows: 2. The commencement fee to an attorney-at-law for the handling of delegated affairs shall be "0." 3. The rights and duties pertaining to the stamp, noise appraisal cost, service charge, records records, verification cost, witness's daily expense, travel expenses, guarantee money, execution cost and all other litigation costs (including attorney's fees) necessary for the handling of delegated affairs shall revert to "B", and the expenses such as notification cost after the completion of the lawsuit, financial institution fees, etc. shall not be deducted from the winning fee. The contingent fee shall be 15% and interest in arrears at the time of the termination of the lawsuit (including surtax). "after the completion of the lawsuit" shall be deemed to be "0."

C. Conclusion of delegation agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant

After the Defendant entered into the instant secondary agreement with 00 deposit and the instant secondary agreement, he/she individually received documents for the delegation of litigation from the residents of the Daegu-gu, including the Plaintiffs. The individual delegation contract of each resident entered 20 persons per each letter of delegation (No. 16-4) with the name, resident registration number, and address of the delegated resident, and expressed his/her intention of delegation with a seal affixed (at that time, a certified copy of the delegated resident registration was attached). In preparation for the progress of the instant noise lawsuit until the third instance, three copies of each proxy document were received. 00 copies of the instant secondary agreement and the Defendant, while entering into the delegation agreement with the Dong residents and the Defendant, kept them in the headquarters for compensation for damages, and posted a banner and poster to guide anyone to read.

D. The progress of the noise lawsuit in this case and the contents of the defendant's lawsuit

1) The progress of the noise lawsuit in this case

From January 7, 2005 to May 9, 2005, the defendant filed a lawsuit to claim damages due to aircraft noise with the Seoul Central District Court on seven occasions. The plaintiff won more than 26,00 cases, and the plaintiff won more than 26,00 cases. The date of the lawsuit against each case, the date of the first instance judgment, the date of the second instance judgment, and the date of final and conclusive judgment are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

Meanwhile, the court quoted amount of each of the above cases and the amount of winning judgment and delay damages that the defendant received from the State until August 30, 201 are as follows (Ministry of National Defense's reply to inquiry of facts as of April 6, 2012), and

A person shall be appointed.

2) Details of the Defendant’s performance of the litigation (based on the case No. 2005Kahap1171, Seoul Central District Court)

A person shall be appointed.

E. Even after August 30, 201, the Defendant received the contingent remuneration from the Defendant, on or after September 22, 2011; on February 20, 2012; on October 16, 2012; and on or after February 7, 2013, the Defendant received additional payment of the winning principal and delay damages; and received KRW 50,895,368,00 in total from the State due to the noise lawsuit in this case until the date of closing the argument (the Defendant was a person who was the Defendant) KRW 28,725,768,270 in total; accordingly, as of the date of closing the argument in this case, the amount calculated as contingent remuneration based on the second agreement in this case is KRW 7,634,305,200 (50,868,000,000,000,000, 16, 2013, 20637,37637,7637

F. Lawsuit of this case

Around August 2011, it became known that the total amount of damages for delay paid by the Defendant through the media reaches 28 billion won. On November 7, 2011, the Plaintiffs asserted the invalidity of the instant secondary agreement against the Defendant and brought a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the refund of the entire amount and damages for delay exceeding 10% of the judgment principal among the contingent fees paid by the Defendant (However, the Plaintiffs who already received 50% of the damages for delay).

[Based on Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 14, 17 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 13-1 through 2, 16-3, 4, 22-1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-1, and 3-3 of the evidence Nos. 29-2, 29-1, 3-1, 3-1, and (c), witness testimony, 00 each testimony to this court, which is significant to this court,

The results of the fact-finding inquiry conducted on April 6, 2012 by the Ministry of National Defense, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. Facts of recognition

1) On January 31, 201, 201, after the date the second instance judgment of the noise lawsuit of this case was rendered, the Defendant sent a notice of the result of the lawsuit (Evidence No. 4-2 of the evidence No. 4-1 and No. 18-h of the evidence No. 18) accompanied by the “documents of the noise lawsuit of this case” (Evidence No. 4-1 of the evidence No. 4-1 and No. 18-h of the above documents) to the winning parties, including the plaintiffs of this case, as follows (hereinafter referred to as the “first agreement”).

The main contents of the notice on the result of the lawsuit (No. 4-1, No. 18-h) are 15% of the winning amount including value-added tax (the first 20% of the winning amount) and interest interest on the fees of residents and lawyers in 2004, and the rights and duties on all the litigation costs including stamp, delivery fees, appraisal fees, etc. shall be vested in the attorney, and all the expenses such as notice and receipt after the completion of the lawsuit shall be borne by the attorney, the fees of the financial institution, etc. shall not be deducted from the winning amount, and any expenses for any name, such as verification, appraisal costs, and stamp shall not be deducted from the winning amount.

(1) The same authority shall be granted from the first instance to the final citizen (the first instance court award by the previous power of attorney) of the attorney-at-law (the address: Address: Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu, 1718-4, 202) on the same terms and conditions as the notice of the result of the lawsuit and the notice of the delegation of the lawsuit in 2011 (No. 4-2 and No. 18-h) and the same conditions as the notice of the delegation of the lawsuit in 2011, and shall be delegated to the final citizen (the address: address: Seocho-gu, Seoul, 1718-4, 202). (2) The request for withdrawal and withdrawal of the lawsuit, submission of the letter of delegation, the power of representation for the cancellation of the delegation contract, and all other powers shall be granted to the final citizen of the combat noise compensation promotion headquarters (the chairman of the 00 h. h. 25, 1956) and the final citizen.(3)

2) Meanwhile, since October 31, 2011, the Defendant sent a document under the title of the agreement on the payment of interest (hereinafter referred to as “the second agreement”) that contains the content of returning 50% of the damages for delay that the Defendant received to the Plaintiffs several times, including the content of returning them to the Plaintiffs, etc., and each second agreement was printed in the same text.

On October 31, 201, the second agreement sent on October 31, 2011, the following persons do not raise any objection to the payment of principal and interest on the noise damage case of Daegu Military Airfield in the future.2. I waive all the claims for payment of interest (including the filing of a lawsuit) in the future.3. I agree to receive the interest of the following actual payment to the head of the Tong who received the winning principal before 3.00.

A person shall be appointed.

3) The plaintiffs signed and sealed the first written agreement and sent it to the defendant, and received 85% of the principal of the judgment in favor of the defendant. Among the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs 1,007 plaintiff 1,07 plaintiff 5 entered in the second written agreement including the plaintiff 1,07 plaintiff 1,07 plaintiff 5) entered in the second written agreement including the plaintiff 1,00 shall enter his name and the following seven forms (the above date of birth has already been entered) in the second written agreement, signed and sealed, and sent it again to the defendant by mail. The 124 of the above 1,007 parties prepared the second written agreement and sent it to the defendant, but did not receive 50% of the damages for delay as stipulated in the said agreement

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 4-1, 2, Evidence No. 1-40, Evidence No. 3-1 to 1140, Evidence No. 4-1, 2, and Evidence No. 18-A, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Parties’ assertion

1) Claim on the first written agreement

On January 31, 2011, the defendant stated in the first written agreement that "I do not raise any objection upon receipt of the amount of money except for the agreed fees in the litigation guide" (Evidence No. 4-2) in the form of "A" (Evidence No. 4-3) of the first written agreement sent by the defendant to the defendant, and all of the plaintiffs agree thereto, and again send the same to the defendant with the name, resident registration number, and address of the above first written agreement to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit, which was prepared and sent to the defendant, shall be dismissed in all of the plaintiffs' lawsuits.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff stated that ① “not raising any objection” in the first agreement only contains a vague expression and it is difficult to view it as an indemnite agreement. ② The first agreement stated and delivered the documents to be sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs to receive the winning payment without explanation of damages for delay, and the Plaintiffs signed and sealed them only as one of the formal procedures to receive the winning payment, and they did not sign and seal them with the meaning of the indemnite agreement (the above stipulation shall be deemed as a printed example in the same vice language). ③ Even if it is recognized as an indemnite agreement, even if it was not known of the concept of damages for delay, it constitutes a mere unfair legal act by using the femnite or indemnite condition of the residents, and thus, it is null and void pursuant to Article 104 of the Civil Act and Article 103 of the Civil Act as a juristic act contrary to good morals and other social order.

2) Claim on the second written agreement

The defendant asserts that if the second written agreement is prepared by the plaintiffs prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case, the plaintiff's lawsuit that was filed after the second written agreement has no interest in the lawsuit, and if the lawsuit was prepared after the filing of the lawsuit in this case, the "agreement to withdraw the lawsuit after the filing of the lawsuit" should be deemed to have been made, and in any case, there is no interest in the lawsuit in all, the lawsuit of the plaintiffs 1029 who prepared the second written agreement among the plaintiffs should be dismissed.

As to this, the Plaintiff: (a) as a part of the lower level of knowledge and living, the Plaintiffs, the residents of the Daegu-gu, signed with them differently from Jin, without accurately understanding the contents of the second agreement; and (b) as such, if the Plaintiffs did not reach the second agreement with the Defendant, the Plaintiffs would be at least at risk of double payment of attorney fees; and (c) upon filing a lawsuit with the Defendant, the Plaintiffs would be at least KRW 10 to 150,000,00, additional costs would be incurred. As the contents of the second agreement were forced by doctors under Article 110 of the Civil Act, the second agreement in this case is invalid; (d) the second agreement in this case did not exist; and (e) some of the above 107 Plaintiffs were prepared and sent to the Defendant, and (e) the second agreement in this case did not accept the second agreement in the second agreement in accordance with their declaration of intent and the second agreement in the second agreement, and thus, the Plaintiffs did not receive at least 250% damages for delay.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first written agreement

On January 31, 201, as seen above, the phrase "the defendant sent notice of the result of the lawsuit" (Evidence No. 4-1) to "the amount to be paid by multiplying 0.85 by the winning amount (referring to the principal of the judgment)" is stated as "the amount to be paid by the winning amount" as "the document attached to the above document (Evidence No. 4-2)". The phrase "I do not raise an objection if I receive the amount other than the agreed fee in the guide of the lawsuit from the winning amount," which is stated as the phrase "No. 4-1 to No. 4813, No. 1-2, and No. 2-1 to No. 1 of the above document, it is hard to view that the plaintiffs' opinion to be paid by the defendant as a whole is not sufficient to be interpreted as "the plaintiff's opinion to have been delivered" to the defendant as the form of the above document and the purport of the statement No. 8-1 and the whole statement No. 2-1 of the above document.

2) Determination on the second written agreement

A) According to the above facts and the above evidences, the contents of the second agreement of this case shall refund 50% of the damages for delay received by the defendant as contingent fees to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs shall withdraw the lawsuit. The above second agreement clearly state the principal of the judgment, damages for delay, and 50% of the damages for delay to be refunded to the defendant, or the plaintiffs shall withdraw the lawsuit as in this case. The above second agreement clearly state the principal of the judgment, damages for delay, and damages for delay to be refunded to the defendant, and it can be acknowledged that the contents of the waiver or withdrawal of the claim for damages for delay are clearly stated. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs in the attached list of the plaintiffs dismissed in the attached Form are aware of the above facts and agreed to the contents of the second agreement and sent their signatures or seals to the defendant. Thus, barring any special circumstances, the lawsuit of the plaintiffs in the second agreement of this case and submitted to the defendant by the plaintiff in the attached list of the plaintiff dismissed to the defendant is unlawful as there is no interest in legal action in accordance with the second agreement or the withdrawal of lawsuit agreement.

B) We examine the plaintiffs' assertion on this issue.

First, as to the plaintiff's assertion of revocation of mistake under Article 109 of the Civil Code, the following circumstances are established by comprehensively taking into account the above facts, Gap's evidence Nos. 6 through 9, Eul's evidence Nos. 3-1 through 1140, and the overall purport of arguments, namely, the time when the defendant sent the second agreement to the plaintiffs, which is, the time when the defendant sent the second agreement to the plaintiffs, has already been raised after October 31, 201, and there has been controversy over the fact that the whole amount of delayed damage is attributed to the defendant's success fees through the press around August 201, and there has been no evidence to acknowledge that the second agreement was pending in the lawsuit in this case in the case of the second agreement dispatched after January 2012, and that the level of knowledge of the plaintiffs who are residents of Daegu-dong-gu residents failed to understand the contents of the second agreement, and there has been no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs' evidence alone submitted by the plaintiffs is insufficient to acknowledge that the second agreement "per mistake" portion at the time when signing and sealing.

Next, in light of the Plaintiff’s assertion of revocation of a declaration of intent by coercion pursuant to Article 110 of the Civil Code, it is acknowledged that the Defendant informed the Plaintiffs that “the risk of double payment of attorney fees and additional cost of KRW 10-150,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) are as follows.” However, the above provision is merely about the guidance of the outcome of the lawsuit conducted in 2012, and it is merely merely about a double lawsuit by delegation of a lawsuit to another attorney, and when the Plaintiffs received direct winning money from the Ministry of National Defense, it constitutes coercion as a threat of harm and injury, or it is difficult to view that the content constitutes a case contrary to social norms and thus constitutes a case contrary to legal order, or a case inappropriate as a means to achieve the Defendant’s interest. Therefore, there is no evidence to support this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion.

Finally, regarding the argument that the plaintiffs who did not receive the amount equivalent to 50% damages for delay in preparing the second agreement are the same as the failure of the second agreement.

In light of the fact that the phrase "I waives all claims (including lawsuits) for the payment of interest in the future" and "I withdraw all claims (including lawsuits) for interest in the future" and "I withdraw the lawsuit and withdraw the lawsuit (including the second agreement dispatched on October 31, 201)" as stated in subparagraph 3-1 through 1140 are not the condition for the payment of 50% damages for delay. The plaintiffs sent the second agreement to the defendant with consent to the above provision, and the defendant did not pay 50% of damages for delay at the request of the above 124 plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the withdrawal of the second agreement does not exist.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The parties' assertion

1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (Provided, That the part on the reasonableness of remuneration shall be stated in separate items) is claiming the return of each amount stated in the purport of the claim (the sum of the amount exceeding 10% of the judgment principal recognized in the noise lawsuit of this case and damages for delay plus 50% of the total amount or damages for delay) to the Defendant based on the following arguments.

(1) Unauthorized Representation Claim

The Defendant and the Defendant concluded the instant second agreement on October 3, 2004 on behalf of the residents of Daegu Dong-gu, including the Plaintiffs, but the 00 deposit merely obtained the “right of consultation necessary for the execution of litigation” from the residents, and did not grant the comprehensive authority to modify or agree on the basic matters of the contract, such as the terms and conditions of attorney fees, and the instant second agreement was scheduled to be made pursuant to the revised agreement on October 1, 2004. As such, including the new contents exceeding 15% of the value of the lawsuit, which was agreed upon as of October 1, 200, included in the instant second agreement in the instant second agreement exceeds the authority granted as 0 deposit, and ultimately, this part of the agreement by the non-authorized person is null and void).

(2) Invalidity assertion under Articles 104 through 103 of the Civil Act

Although the Defendant predicted that the damages for delay in the noise lawsuit of this case would be a considerable amount of damages for delay, it included the full amount of damages for delay in the attorney's fee by using the points that the Plaintiffs are not well aware of the concept of damages for delay. The second agreement of this case is a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness due to the rashness and inexperience of the residents of Dong-gu, including the other party, and thus, it is null and void pursuant to Article 104 of the Civil Act. In the case of damages for delay, if the attorney's fee is paid, it is likely to cause disadvantageous consequences to the client due to the delay in the lawsuit by the attorney's intention. Ultimately, in light of the public nature and ethics of the attorney, it is null and void as it goes against good morals

(3) Claim for revocation of mistake

Even if there was a legitimate power of attorney to conclude the instant secondary agreement with 00 trustees, it constitutes an important part of the contract as to the attorney’s fees in the instant secondary agreement with the attorney, and it is thought that the content of the instant secondary agreement was concluded on October 1, 2004 in advance on the extension of the amendment agreement made on October 1, 2004, and that the contents of attorney’s fees were 15% of the winning price, and the portion that the damages for delay was included in the contingent fees was signed in the second agreement without knowing at all, and thus, it was cancelled by Article 109 of the Civil Act as an error in an important part, and thus, the instant secondary agreement has no effect.

(4) Claims to revoke a declaration of intention by deception.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed on October 1, 2004 that "20% of the success price" in the first agreement of this case should be reduced to 15% of the success price. However, the second agreement of this case, which was prepared by the defendant on October 3, 2004, unilaterally stated the success fee to 15% of the success price and the interest for delay, and it constitutes deception to allow 00 deposit holders to sign the second agreement of this case without any explanation about the fact that the aforementioned damages for delay are included in the contingent fee as above to 0 deposit, and therefore, the second agreement of this case is revoked pursuant to Article 110 (1) of the Civil Act. Accordingly, the second agreement of this case has no effect.

2) The defendant's assertion

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that ① as the representative of the Daegu Dong-gu residents, there was a comprehensive power of attorney to conclude the second agreement of this case, and even if not, it has been legally ratified by the first agreement that was sent to receive winning money after the completion of the noise lawsuit of this case, ② the plaintiffs' remaining invalidation and revocation claim as asserted by the plaintiff.

B. Whether the second agreement of this case was effective

1) Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion of invalidation

In light of the fact that there was an agreement with another attorney on delegation with regard to the academic background, career, and noise lawsuit in around 200 when considering the 00 deposits, it is difficult to view that 00 deposits entered into the second agreement with the defendant in the course of rash and non-legal experience. Unlike the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff entered into the second agreement with the defendant in the course of rash and non-legal experience. Furthermore, in addition, in light of the fact that the specific contents of the second agreement are 0 advance payments and all costs of lawsuit including noise costs, including the cost of appraisal, are borne by the defendant, and the costs of notification, financial institution fees, etc., are borne by the defendant after the completion of the lawsuit, are borne by the defendant, and the costs of the lawsuit in the lawsuit in this case are not deducted from winning, and the costs borne by the plaintiffs were not deducted from winning, and thus, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs' assertion that the terms of the second agreement in this case are considerably unfair or unfair from good morals in terms of social order.

2) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s revocation argument

On July 21, 2004, before the second agreement, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the statement of No. 5, Eul's evidence, testimony of 00 witnesses and the purport of the entire pleadings are different, namely, where the defendant requests 00 deposits and the residents of Dong and Dong to pay money, even before the second agreement of this case. There is no part such as the amount at the request of the attorney, and there is an interest of the specified amount. If the resident requests the case at his own expense, there is a son's own expense, and there is no part such as the amount at the request of the attorney, and there is a son's own interest. In addition, the 00 deposit confirmed that the attorney's success fee was indicated as 15% of the winning amount and interest interest as 10% of the winning amount at the time of the second agreement of this case, and there is no sufficient evidence to find that the 000 deposit and 200% of the principal interest in this case's signature and 200% of the contract of this case.

3) Judgment on the plaintiffs' non-exclusive assertion

On August 3, 2008, in light of the contents of the 'K-2 of the 'K-2 of the conference for joint countermeasures against each of the 'K-2 of the parties involved in the noise damage compensation lawsuit against the representative,' and the status of 80 residents present at the above joint countermeasures conference on August 11, 2004 (Evidence A-1-2), the authority to conclude the 1st agreement on behalf of the residents is recognized. However, it is difficult to view that the 80 residents present at the time of the 1st agreement and the 1st agreement as mentioned above were specific provisions of the 1st agreement and signed at the time of the 1st agreement, and there is no authority to conclude the 1st agreement as 0% of the 'the right to win' of the 1st agreement and 20% of the 1st agreement as the 'the right to win' of the 1st agreement, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the 10th agreement was invalid.

However, the following facts are found as follows: (i) When the defendant entered into the second agreement with 00 deposit and received documents individually for delegation of lawsuit from the residents of Daegu Dong-gu, including the plaintiffs, after the conclusion of the second agreement with 00 deposit, the second agreement of this case is kept in the damages compensation countermeasure headquarters; (ii) the residents who wish to receive documents in order to enter into the second agreement of this case by posting placards and posters to inform that anyone can read with 00 deposit, and publicly announce them to Dong-gu residents so that the contents of the second agreement of this case can be confirmed at any time; (iii) around 2005, the lawsuit concerning the noise lawsuit of this case is concluded; and (iv) the residents, including the plaintiffs, have no objection to the conclusion of the second agreement with 00 deposit and signed it on behalf of the residents of this case; and (iii) in the case of a class action, it is difficult to conclude the second agreement with 200 deposit agreement of this case and the plaintiffs have no specific objection to each of the plaintiffs' specific reasons to the agreement of this case.

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the agreement of this case entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant is lawful and effective by ratification. Thus, the defendant has the right to receive the full amount of contingent fees under the second agreement of this case from the plaintiffs, barring any special circumstance to be seen later, and the above plaintiffs' assertion is not accepted. Whether the remuneration under the second agreement of this case is reasonable or not.

1) Basic legal principles

In principle, barring any special circumstance, an attorney-at-law who completed the delegated affairs may claim the agreed amount of remuneration in full in cases where there is an agreement with the client on the remuneration for the delegated affairs of an attorney-at-law. However, barring any special circumstance, the attorney-at-law who has completed the delegated affairs may claim the agreed amount of remuneration, barring any special circumstance. However, in light of the relationship with the client from the ordinary lawsuit, the circumstances leading up to the acceptance of the case, the amount of the case, the progress and difficulty of the case, the degree of effort, the value of the subject matter of lawsuit, the specific interest that the client gained from winning the case, and other circumstances revealed in the pleading, the agreed amount unfairly excessive remuneration is contrary to the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da57626, Apr. 25, 1995; 200Da50190, Apr. 12, 2002; 2009Da212716, supra.).

existence of circumstances

위 법리를 기초로 이 사건을 보건대, 앞에서 본 사실 및 갑 제14호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재, 증인 00탁의 증언 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, 이 사건 소음소송은 한 푼의 착수금도 없이 변호사가 모든 소송비용과 패소로 인한 위험 부담을 떠안고 약 7년에 걸쳐 진행되었고, 실제 자금조달 등의 문제로 피고가 상당히 고통을 받았던 것으로 보이는 점, 이 사건 소음소송을 수행하는 데 피고가 들인 노력이 적지 않았고 사건의 난이도가 결코 쉽다고 단정 짓기 어려운 점[실제로 서울중앙지법 2005가합11171 사건의 경우 1심에서 6회의 변론기일(변론준비기일 포함), 2심에서 5회의 변론기일, 3심에서의 1회의 준비서면 등 상당한 공방이 이뤄 졌었음을 알 수 있다], 피고는 이 사건 소음소송의 규모가 변호사 1인의 개인 법률사무소에서 감당하기에는 벅차다고 생각하여 몇 번이나 사건 수임을 사양하였으나 00탁 이 계속하여 이 사건 소음소송을 수임해 줄 것을 요청하여 피고가 응하게 되었던 점, 피고와 00탁이 변호사 보수와 관련하여 협의를 진행할 당시 피고는 군산비행장 소음사건의 경우 1인당 10만 원씩 착수금을 받고 진행한 예가 있어, 얼마라도 착수금을 받고 소송 수임을 하기를 원하였으나, 00탁이 성공보수를 높이더라도 주민부담이 없도록 하여야 한다는 취지로 이야기 하였고, 위와 같은 맥락에서 부가가치세, 소송비용 공제 등 복잡하게 하지 않고 '승소가액의 몇 %' 식으로 하면 주민 15만 명은 모을 수 있다고 장담하며 '승소가액의 20%로 하는 이 사건 1차 약정을 체결하였기에 피고로서는 이 사건 1차 약정에서의 약정했던 수준의 성공보수는 받아야 한다고 전제하고 있었던 것으로 보이는 점, 피고로서는 00탁 및 동구 주민들의 요청으로 어쩔 수 없이 자신이 전제한 보수 수준인 '승소가액의 20%'에서 '승소가액의 15%'로 5%를 낮추었기에 이 부분을 보완하기 위한 정도의 보수로 지연손해금을 성공보수로 포함한 것으로 보이고, 이 사건 2차 약정 당시에는 지연손해금이 막대하게 증가할 것이라는 점은 전혀 예상하지 못하였던 것으로 보이는 점[판결선고 시까지의 지연손해금 5%만을 상정한다면, 성공보수 총액은 12,674,305,200원(승소판결 원금의 15%인 7,634,305,200 원 + 지연손해금 중 민법에서 정한 5% 부분 약5,040,000,000원9)이고, 이는 승소가액의 약 16%(12,674,305,200원/79,321,136,270원 100)이다], 이 사건 소음소송은 원고들 인원수만 하여도 6만 2,000명을 상회(피고 측에 최초로 접수한 접수인원은 8만여 명정도였 다)하여 위 원고들로부터 접수한 각 서류를 수집, 분류하고 정리하여 법원에 접수하고, 미비한 서류의 보완을 위해 각 원고들에게 서류를 발송하는 등 각종 소송수행 절차에 많은 시간과 노력이 들었고, 소송종료 후에도 소송결과 및 승소금 수령 등 후속 절차를 위한 서류를 발송하고 수집하여 승소금을 이체하는 등의 업무에 많은 시간과 비용·노력이 들었던 것으로 보이는 점, 환경소송 · 집단소송의 특성상 그 손해의 증명, 손해배상액의 산정 등에 관하여 주장·입증하는 데에 전문성이 요구되며, 이를 입증하기 위한 업무량도 적지 않았을 것으로 보이는 점, 피고는 이 사건 소음소송이 대법원에서 확정되기까지의 7년 동안 다른 변호사와 공동으로 소송을 수행함이 없이 홀로 소송 비용을 부담하며 소송을 수행해야만 했으며 이 사건 소음소송을 수행하느라 다른 소송을 수임할 여력이 되지 않아 추가로 소송 수임도 하지 못하여 그만큼의 기회비용도 지불한 것으로 보이는 점, 대구 변호사가 수행한 다른 소송과 비교할 때 소음지도(을 제21호증의 1 내지 5) 등에서 유리한 결과를 얻어낸 점, 피고는 주민으로부터 이 사건 소음소송을 수임하면서 '착수금을 0원'으로 약정하여, 실제 6만 2천여 명에 대하여 든 비용을 자신의 성공보수에서 충당하여야만 하는 점 등이 인정되는 반면, 달리피고가 소송을 불성실하게 수행하거나 고의로 소송을 지연시켰다는 점을 인정할 증거가 없는 점 등의 제반 사정을 모두 고려하면, 이 사건 2차 약정에서 "지연손해금 전액"을 성공보수로 하는 것 자체가 신의성실의 원칙에 반한다고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 있다고는 보이지 아니한다.

3) In the instant noise lawsuit, there is a special circumstance to deem that allocating the full amount of contingent fees under the instant second agreement to the Defendant is contrary to the principle of equity.

However, comprehensively taking account of the facts and the purport of the above 20 to 8 evidence 20, the defendant's damages for delay as stated in the above 20 to 30,000 won and damages for delay were increased by 4.7 times as well as damages for delay which the defendant did not make any deposit or reimbursement at the fact-finding court with respect to the noise lawsuit of this case (5%). The defendant's damages for delay which were 1 to 30,000 won and 50,000 won were 50,000 won and 50,000 won were 1 to 30,000 won and 50,000 won and 50,000 won were 70,000 won and 5,000 won were 1 to 70,000 won and 5,000 won were 1 to 67,776,7067,75,000 won were 67,000 won.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the instant secondary agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant is valid, but it is unreasonable to vest the full amount of damages for delay calculated under the said agreement to the Defendant in violation of the principle of equity. As such, the Defendant is obliged to return the amount equivalent to 50% of the damages for delay in excess of the reasonable part recognized above to the Plaintiffs as unjust enrichment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuits listed in the separate sheet of dismissed plaintiffs are dismissed in its entirety. ② The defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until May 21, 2013 and 5% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, since each plaintiff's claims listed in the separate sheet of attached sheet of attached sheet of attached sheet of the defendant are justified within the above scope of recognition, and each plaintiff's remaining claims are accepted within the scope of recognition, and since February 18, 2012, after the copy of the complaint of this case was served on the defendant (the defendant's obligation to return is due to delay from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case) and the extent of the defendant's obligation to pay damages for delay calculated by the rate of 10% per annum as stated in the separate sheet of attached sheet of attached sheet of this case of this case of this case, each plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges

The presiding judge, judge and auditor;

Judges Dohjin-jin

Judges Kim Gin-hee

Note tin

1) Seoul Central District Court Act 2005Gahap1563 (Plaintiff 15,672), 2005Gahap1171 (Plaintiff 9,392), 2005Gahap15401 (Plaintiff 7,176), 2005Gahap22744 (won)

High 8,988), 2005Ga26258 (Plaintiff 5,296), 2005Gahap26579 (Plaintiff 1,832), 2005Gahap40148 (Plaintiff 14,326), and 62,682

2) Each of the instant agreements states "interest for delay" as "interest for delay," but it means "damage for delay," and thus, in a judgment, it is "damage for delay."

I refer to the name of unification.

3) At the first instance court, the date for preparatory pleading was one time, five times in total, and six times in the date for pleading.

4) In the second instance, pleadings were made in a total of five times.

5) The above 1,007 persons are no more than 1,006 persons with the exception of the agreement of the plaintiffs (134 persons) who have withdrawn from the lawsuit among the second agreement of 1,140 persons submitted by the defendant (1,00 persons), although the second agreement was filed by the defendant.

The bill is not submitted, but the second written agreement shall be prepared in order to take into account the existence of 50% of the damages for delay (as referred to in subparagraph 4-1, 2).

It is reasonable to see that it was lost, including Plaintiff Kim Jong-young.

6) The Defendant alleged in the preparatory document on June 7, 2012 as 1,029, but thereafter, the second written agreement and the withdrawal of the Plaintiffs that the Defendant additionally submitted.

Considering that there are 1,006 Plaintiffs who prepared the second written agreement and lost the second written agreement, but they were transferred 50% of damages for delay.

The plaintiff is a total of 1,007 members.

7) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff, who prepared and submitted the second written agreement, pursuant to the respective statement of No. 3-1 to 1140 of the evidence No. 3-1 of the Plaintiff’s total amount.

It is confirmed that the number of 1,006 is confirmed and that the second agreement was not submitted for reasons such as loss of the second agreement, but 50% of the damages for delay was received.

At the time, the second written agreement is prepared and submitted by 1,007 persons, including Plaintiff 585 Kim Jong-young, with a total of 1,007 persons.

The number of persons who have submitted shall be reasonable.

8) In claiming the invalidity of the second agreement of this case, the plaintiffs and the defendant, as shown in the amended agreement, are the maximum attorney's fees.

Since there was an intention to conclude a contract with 15% of the litigation price, in light of such intent, the entire contract for delegation of a lawsuit is null and void.

It argues that a part of the invalidation is null and void only in excess of the above consistent intent (this argument is null and void below).

The same shall also apply to the revocation argument.

9) Damages for delay by 5% as stipulated in the Civil Act from June 2008 to September 9, 2008, the time of tort, to the time of each judgment of the noise lawsuit in this case.

This addition is calculated on the basis of approximately KRW 500,000,000,000 (No. 17). The daily newspaper articles of September 9, 201, among evidence No. 17, are significant to this court.

참조조문

참조판례

-(변경)대법원 2009. 7. 9. 선고 2009다21249 판결

-대법원 1995. 4. 25. 선고 94다57626 판결

-대법원 2002. 4. 12. 선고 2000다50190 판결