1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 11, 2015, the appellate court of the instant case entered into a contract to delegate a lawsuit concerning the instant case (hereinafter “instant contract to delegate a lawsuit”) with the Plaintiff, an attorney-at-law belonging to the C law office, who was an attorney-at-law belonging to Busan District Court 2014 Godan10186, which was prosecuted due to indecent act by force.

B. The Plaintiff was sentenced to a suspended sentence of a fine on December 18, 2015, on the grounds that the Plaintiff performed delegated affairs, such as inspection, copying, submission of the statement of grounds of appeal, attendance at court date, and defense.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the attorney’s variable of KRW 50,000 in the instant contract for the delegation of the lawsuit, the Defendant is asserting that the Defendant is seeking payment since only KRW 10,000 is not paid the remainder.

According to the evidence No. 1, “A” or “B” or “B million won at the time of the conclusion of the contract for the delegation of the lawsuit in this case,” the remainder specified in the instant contract as of September 11, 2015 (2 million won at the time of the contract for the delegation of the lawsuit in advance; KRW 8 million in cash; KRW 1 million at the time of the agreement for the remainder of the contract; KRW 2 million at the time of the final innocence; and KRW 2 million at the time of the final innocence” or “the remainder specified as of November 6, 2015.

The facts indicated as “a change of condition at the time of suspended sentence” or “a price of KRW 15 million at the time of innocence, or KRW 100 million at the time of suspended sentence on December 4, 2015, may be acknowledged. However, as alleged above, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement to pay KRW 50 million at the time of suspended sentence. If the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the premise that there was an agreement to pay KRW 40 million at the time of suspended sentence, it is acknowledged that the date and time of the agreement is in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act, and the agreement is null and void in accordance with the purport of the judgment. Accordingly, any mother or the Plaintiff’s agreement is deemed null and void.