Where an attorney-at-law agrees to receive a certain percentage of his/her appointment fees and arranges his/her agency for a case, whether the attorney-at-law violates the Attorney-at-law Act

Article 90 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that a person, other than an attorney-at-law, who agrees with an attorney-at-law to receive a certain percentage of the fees for appointment from a party to a lawsuit, and mediates the attorney-at-law to act for the case, and then receives the agreed amount, shall conflict with Article 90 (2) of the Attorney-at-law Act. In such cases, it shall not be treated differently on the ground that the person who arranged acts as an attorney-at

Article 90 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Song-ho

Daejeon District Court Decision 98No2390 delivered on May 27, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the defense counsel are examined.

Examining the evidence adopted by the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below and the court of first instance in light of the records, the measures that the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of each crime in the judgment of the court of first instance are just, and it cannot be said that there were errors in violation of the rules of evidence or in violation of the provisions of Articles 7(1), 12(7), 27(4) and 103 of the Constitution

Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that a person, other than an attorney-at-law, who agrees with an attorney-at-law to receive a certain percentage of the fees for appointment from a party to a lawsuit, and mediates the case to the attorney-at-law and receives the agreed amount. In such a case, the act of arranging a case does not conflict with Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-law Act, and it is not treated differently because the act of arranging a case was conducted by the attorney-at-law who has accepted the act of acting as an attorney-at-law or by paying a supplement to part of the fees (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1720, Dec. 23, 1986). In this regard, the court below is just in applying Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-law Act,

In addition, as long as the defendant's decision-making acts constitute acts subject to the Attorney-at-Law Act's regulation beyond the scope of legitimate business activities as attorneys-at-law, they cannot be said to be justifiable acts that do not violate social rules and regulations.

The grounds of appeal are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)