Plaintiff (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Noh Ho-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and four others (Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 31, 2016

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap564090 Decided October 7, 2015

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff 802,889,000 won with 5% interest per annum from December 14, 2013 to the service date of a duplicate of the instant complaint, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The Plaintiff: The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows. It is so decided as to the purport of the claim.

B. The Defendants: Each part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of this court is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts added as follows.

2. The addition;

○ Once the 8th judgment of the first instance is rendered, the following shall be added.

Of Defendant 1, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5’s obligation to pay rent of KRW 839,672,183 owed by partners to ○○○○○○○○, Co., Ltd. (= KRW 839,672,183 x 42,058 ± 330,000 x less than KRW 330,00), the Plaintiff is obligated to additionally deduct the Plaintiff’s above rent from the amount equivalent to the value of ○○○○○○○○, but according to the appraisal by Nonparty 3 of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff of ○○○○○, Inc. was already reflected in the value of the asset and calculated the value of the stock. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim on this premise cannot be accepted.”

Then, the first instance judgment No. 10 No. 15 provides that “No. 15” is included in the premium, which is an intangible property value, and that it is difficult to view that a separate premium was defined by distinguishing it from the goodwill that is naturally included in the calculation of equity value.”

○ On the 12th page of the first instance judgment, the following is added.

d. Judgment on the Preliminary Claim

1) Preliminaryly, on March 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendants concluded a special legal advice agreement with the law firm Sejong and the Defendants stating that “the members of ○○○ Women Hospital who do not consent to the consulting result shall select the withdrawing members from among the shares appraised as a result of consultation, or the amount calculated by adding an annual interest of 6% on the investment amount during the investment period, and shall sell and withdraw from the association the remaining members,” and that “the Plaintiff’s share value of 926 million won” or “the annual interest of 6% during the investment amount and its investment period,” which are assessed by the said special agreement, seek for settlement of the investment amount and interest of 794,460,274 won and damages for delay.

2) First of all, according to the purport of the oral arguments as to whether the above contract of this case was modified under the legal advice agreement of this case, Gap 25, 26, and 27, Eul 9 and 10, the plaintiff and the defendants are not entitled to legal advice for 20 billion won or less in accordance with the above legal advice agreement of this case. According to the amendment to the Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 11252, Feb. 1, 2012 and enforced August 2, 2012), the plaintiff and the defendants are not entitled to legal advice for 20 billion won or less in accordance with the legal advice agreement of this case. According to the legal advice and agreement of this case, it is hard to find that there is a right to legal advice and agreement of this case 20 billion won or less in accordance with the above legal advice and agreement of this case. According to the legal advice and agreement of this case 200 billion won or less in terms of legal advice and agreement of this case's partner 200 billion won or less.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and all appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Judge)