1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 72,926,783 and KRW 59,403,547.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, the part concerning "3,50,720 of income tax" as "3,550,720 of income tax and local income tax 355,070 won" as "3,550,720 of income tax and local income tax 35,070 of income tax," and the part concerning the 8 pages 1 through 14 of income tax are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(However, the amount of custody that the Defendant is obliged to return to the Plaintiff is KRW 72,926,783,783, which deducts the contingent fees of KRW 24,308,927,00 from the total compensation of KRW 97,235,710. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to return to the Plaintiff. As for the Defendant’s total compensation of KRW 72,926,783 and KRW 59,403,547 (=total compensation of KRW 97,235,710 - total contingent fees of the contract under the delegation contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant 37,832,163) on September 21, 2010, when the delegation contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant comes due to the termination of the delegation contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the mandatory shall return to the Plaintiff money received due to the management of delegated affairs and other goods, and when there is any negligence on the part of the delegated parties, unless there is a special agreement between the parties to deliver the money.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the delegation contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated when the Defendant received full compensation from the Korea Electric Power Corporation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da64432, Feb. 8, 2007). As such, the Defendant’s obligation to refund compensation to the Plaintiff was due, and the due date has arrived. However, as to KRW 13,523,236, the Defendant’s obligation to return compensation was invalidated from the contingent fees stipulated in the above delegation contract, and the Defendant should return the compensation.