1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On April 2013, the Plaintiff, an attorney-at-law, was delegated by the Jungbu District Court 2013Kahap3931 (hereinafter “C, etc.”) between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty B and the Nonparty C and two others (hereinafter “B, etc.”) and performed the litigation agency affairs.

On April 30, 2014, in the above-mentioned District Court Decision 2013Gahap3931, C, etc. rendered a partial favorable judgment ordering Nonparty B to jointly and severally pay KRW 800 million and delay damages therefor. Accordingly, both Nonparty B and C, etc. filed an appeal with Seoul High Court 2014Na25759 (the appeal court also accepted by the Plaintiff; hereinafter the above first instance court and the appellate court collectively referred to as “instant lawsuit”), but the appeal was dismissed on January 15, 2015, and the above first instance judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

On February 25, 2015, Nonparty B received KRW 931,945,271 in total, from C, etc., penalty and damages for delay thereof in accordance with the above judgment.

On the other hand, on April 18, 2013, the Plaintiff received KRW 5 million from Nonparty B as the retainerion amount of the lawsuit at issue. After the judgment of the lawsuit at issue became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff requested Nonparty B to pay KRW 50 million to Nonparty B’s account (hereinafter “the instant money”) and received money from Nonparty B on February 27, 2015.

On February 27, 2015, the Defendant: (a) determined that the Plaintiff received the instant money from Nonparty B as the contingent fee for the lawsuit at issue; (b) imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 15,141,070 of global income tax for the year 2015 and KRW 6,281,81,810 of global income tax for the year 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, written evidence Nos. 4, 10, and 1 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and written evidence Nos. 1, and the overall purport of the instant disposition was confirmed, and the Plaintiff demanded the payment of contingent fees to Nonparty B after the main issue of the Plaintiff’s argument was confirmed. Nonparty B denied the contingent fee agreement.