1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Since the defendant alleged that the plaintiff's claim of this case is unlawful because it conflicts with the non-committee agreement, it is not sufficient to recognize that the non-committee agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was concluded, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the non-committee agreement has been reached.

The defendant's prior defense on the merits is without merit.

On December 4, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the cause of the claim occurred. On December 4, 2013, the Plaintiff delegated the Plaintiff’s criminal procedure defense to the Defendant for the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and paid KRW 13.2 million as the retainer.

On December 26, 2013, Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office issued a non-prosecution disposition on the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against the plaintiff.

Accordingly, on January 6, 2014, the Plaintiff indicated that the delegation contract of this case was terminated prior to the commencement of the instant lawsuit at the Defendant’s office, and on the other hand, it can be deemed that the instant delegation contract of this case was invalidated due to the fulfillment of the condition of rescission, which is a non-prosecution disposition by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 13.2 million won and damages for delay paid from the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and Eul evidence No. 6, the plaintiff entered into a delegation contract with the defendant on December 4, 2013 (hereinafter "the delegation contract of this case") under which the defendant entrusts the defendant with the duties, such as the defense for the criminal suspect's case on the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (hereinafter "the delegation contract of this case"), and paid 13.2 million won (including value-added tax) with the retainer, and the delegation contract of this case cannot be demanded to return the retainer even after the mandate is terminated due to a cause not attributable to the mandatary (Article 3(b)), and the contract of this case shall not be demanded to return the contingent fee of 30 million won (excluding value-added tax) (Article 6(1)7), and the defendant entered into the delegation contract of this case.