(a) Where an attorney-at-law is unable to request the full payment of agreed remuneration for the handling of delegated affairs in a lawsuit;

(b) The case holding that although the total amount of the agreed fee exceeds the limit calculated by the rate table of the attorney fee rules, it is difficult to regard it as an unduly excessive reduction in light of the principle of good faith and the principle of equity;

A. Where there is an agreement between the parties on the remuneration for the handling of delegated affairs in a lawsuit, an attorney-at-law who has completed the delegated affairs may claim payment of the full amount of the agreed fees, but in light of the circumstances surrounding the acceptance of the case, the progress and difficulty of the handling of the case, the amount of the subject matter of lawsuit, the specific benefits obtained by the parties as a result of winning the lawsuit, the rules on attorney-at-law fees to which the parties belong, and all other circumstances indicated in pleadings, it is an exception only when there are special circumstances against the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of equity because the agreed fees unfairly excessive.

B. The case holding that it is difficult to view that the agreed amount of remuneration is unfairly excessive and excessive in light of the principle of good faith or the principle of equity in light of all the circumstances, including the following: although the total amount of the agreed amount of remuneration exceeds the limit calculated in accordance with the rate table of the attorney's fee rules, the total amount of the agreed amount of remuneration is permitted up to 40 percent of the economic value of the subject case; the total amount of the fee remains up to six percent of the economic value of the subject case; the conclusion process of the contract for the agreed amount of remuneration; the process of the litigation conducted by the attorney; and the economic interest the party to the contract

Article 2 of the Civil Act, Article 19 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1322 Decided September 5, 1967 (No. 15 ③No. 40) 68Da1050 Decided July 31, 1968 (No. 16 ② citizen342) 71Da2722 Decided February 29, 1972 (No. 20 ② citizen128)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na23412, 23429 (Counterclaim) Decided January 18, 1991

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff shall be reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

Where there is an agreement between the parties on the remuneration for the handling of delegated affairs in a lawsuit, an attorney-at-law who has completed the delegated affairs may claim payment of the full amount of the agreed remuneration: Provided, That in cases where there are special circumstances contrary to the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of equity because the agreed remuneration unfairly excessive in light of the circumstances surrounding the acceptance of the case, the progress and difficulty of the handling of the case, the value of the subject matter of lawsuit, the specific benefits obtained by the parties due to the winning of the case, the rules on the remuneration of the affiliated attorney-at-law association, and other various arguments, it

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the above 80 million won on March 1982, 198. The defendant's claim for the above 80 million won for 80 million won for 80 million won for 80 million won for 80 million won for 80 won for 40 million won for 80 won for 80 won for 60 won for 80 won for 80 won for 60 won for 80 won for 60 won for 80 won for 80 won for 60 won for 60 won for 80 won for 60 won for 90 won for 9. for 80 million won for 9 won for 60 won for 60 won for 80 won for 60 won for 9. for 198 won for 9 won for 60 won for 60 won for 9. for 196 won for 5 won for 196 won for 2's for 9.

However, even according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff was unable to secure the defendant's right through the lawsuit since 1982. 5 billion won to 19. 5 billion won of the above 80 billion won of the loan 2. 5 billion won of the above 80 billion won of the loan 2. 80 billion won of the loan 19. 8 billion won of the above 9. 8 billion won of the loan 2. 80 billion won of the loan 19. 8 billion won of the above 9. 8 billion won of the loan 9. 8 billion won of the loan 9. 8 billion won of the above 9. 8 billion won of the loan 9. 8 billion won of the loan 9. 8 billion won of the loan 9. 8 billion won of the loan 9. 8 billion won of the loan 1960 billion won of the loan 50 billion won of the loan 19. 8 billion won of the loan 1960 billion won of the loan 9.

The total amount of the Plaintiff’s remuneration is more than 1500 won than the limit calculated by the rate table of the Rules on Attorney’s Fees. However, given that the total amount of the remuneration under the Rules on Attorney’s Fees is permitted to be more than 40 percent of the economic value of the subject matter of the case, the total amount of the instant remuneration remains more than 6 percent of the economic value of the subject matter of the lawsuit. Therefore, considering all circumstances such as the process leading up to the conclusion of the agreement on the remuneration, the process of the lawsuit conducted by the Plaintiff, and the economic benefits gained from the Plaintiff’s delegated affairs, it is difficult to view that the agreed remuneration amount of the instant case is an unduly excessive amount in light of

Nevertheless, without examining the economic benefits obtained as a result of the handling of delegated affairs in the instant case and the amount of remuneration permitted by the Rules on Attorney Fees for them, the lower court, which reduced the amount to the extent that it does not reach the limit permitted by the Rules on Attorney Fees, is erroneous in matters of law by misapprehending the legal doctrine on illegal or unfair hearing-related fee agreements. The argument is with merit.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho