(a) Where an attorney-at-law may request only the amount of remuneration within the reasonable scope out of the agreed remuneration for the handling of delegated affairs in a lawsuit;

(b) The case holding that, in light of all the circumstances, such as the amount of contingent fees under the rules on the standards for attorney fees and the details of delegation of cases, the total amount of contingent fees of attorney fees shall be reduced unfairly, and the agreement on excessive fees shall be null and void in violation

A. In principle, in a case where there is an agreement with the client on the amount of fees for the handling of delegated affairs in a case where the attorney-at-law agreed on the amount of fees for the handling of delegated affairs, barring any special circumstance, an attorney-at-law who completed the delegated affairs may claim the full amount of fees agreed upon, barring special circumstances. However, in light of the following circumstances, in a case where there are special circumstances to deem that the agreed amount of fees is unduly excessive and thus contravenes the principle of good faith or the principle of equity, the attorney-at-law who completed the delegated affairs may claim only the amount of fees within the reasonable scope in consideration of the following circumstances: (a) the background leading up to the entrustment of cases, the amount of the attorney-at-law, the progress of handling the cases, the degree of difficulty

B. The case holding that the contract is null and void in violation of the principle of trust and good faith since the amount of contingent fees of 6,790,000 won under the rules on the standards for attorney fees is limited to 3,460,000 won, and the attorney fees of 6,790,000 won are limited to 3,460,000 won and the attorney fees of 3,460,000 won are delegated by the law on the inclusion of litigation costs under the rules on the inclusion of attorney fees as well as the attorney fees of f,460,00 won have been delegated by the law after he/she was the father of f's f's f's f's f's f's f' and f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's.

(a)Article 2 of the Civil Code, Article 19 of the Attorney-at-Law;

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 91Da8722, 8739 delivered on December 13, 1991 (Gong1992,503). (b) Supreme Court Decision 67Da1322 delivered on September 5, 1967 (No. 153Da1530 delivered on July 31, 1968) 68Da1050 delivered on July 31, 1968 (No. 16 ②342 delivered on February 29, 1972 (No. 200Da128).

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na16145 delivered on July 3, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

In principle, in cases where there is an agreement with the client on the amount of fees for the handling of delegated affairs of an attorney-at-law, an attorney-law who has completed the delegated affairs may claim the full amount of fees agreed upon, barring any special circumstances, barring any special circumstance. However, in light of the client’s relationship from the balance with the client, the background for the handling of the case, the amount of the case, the progress of the handling of the case, the degree of difficulty, effort, the amount of the lawsuit, the amount of the fees gained by the client as a result of winning the case, and other circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the rules on attorney-at-law fees to which the client belongs, if there are special circumstances to deem that the agreed amount of fees unfairly excessive and thus contravenes the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of equity, only the amount of fees within the reasonable scope shall be deemed reasonable in light of the aforementioned circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 71Da2722, Feb. 29, 197; 91Da87222

The court below decided that the plaintiff's fee of 0,00 won was 0,00 won for non-party 1, non-party 2, non-party 3, non-party 7, and non-party 1's non-party 8's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 8's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 0's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 0's non-party 1's non-party 8's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party

In light of relevant evidence and records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to contain an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles like the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to discuss.

The Supreme Court Decisions pointing out the theory of the party members are inappropriate to resort to the instant case, as they relate to the case different from the instant case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)