1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) On June 22, 2016, C Village Residents Association filed an application for provisional disposition prohibiting the operation of a factory with the Jeonju District Court 2016Kahap102 against the Defendant, stating that “No act related to the operation of the factory, such as the manufacture, sale, etc. of concrete products, shall be performed at the Defendant’s factory located outside D, and on the ground, the Jeonju District Court 2016Kahap102, stating that “if the Defendant violates this, it shall pay KRW 3 million per day of the offense” (hereinafter referred to as “application for provisional disposition”).

(2) On June 29, 2016, the Defendant concluded a contract on the delegation of a lawsuit (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to the instant case of application for provisional disposition to the Plaintiff, a law firm, and agreed to pay KRW 5,500,000 with the retainer fee and KRW 15 million with the contingent fee upon dismissal of the instant application for provisional disposition.

3) On November 1, 2016, the said court rendered a ruling dismissing the application for provisional disposition of this case. The said ruling became final and conclusive on November 24, 2016. The fact that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings in this court.

B. According to the facts established prior to the determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the contingent remuneration of KRW 15 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 27, 2018 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of the original copy of the instant payment order.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that, although the defendant agreed to pay the contingent remuneration to the plaintiff when he won the entire lawsuit in the instant provisional disposition case and the merits, the defendant did not have an obligation to pay the contingent remuneration to the plaintiff.

However, there is no evidence to support that the agreement for the payment of contingent remuneration was concluded as alleged by the defendant, and the defendant rather concludes the contract of this case.