The defendant shall pay 56,50,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from September 27, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff on September 10, 2015, determined that the Changwon District Court 2015ddan 11561 divorce and consolation money case (excluding value-added tax); and (b) performance remuneration is KRW 8 million (excluding value-added tax); and (c) performance remuneration is 10% of the value of economic gains acquired by winning (excluding value-added tax)

B. In the above lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff on February 15, 2017, the Defendant and C were divorced with the Defendant on the basis of the principal lawsuit filed by the Defendant, and C was sentenced to the Defendant to pay consolation money of KRW 10 million (including delay damages) and property division of KRW 55,36,635 (including delay damages from the day after the date of the final judgment) to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant was awarded a favorable judgment of KRW 10 million and KRW 555,366,635 with the division of property. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as the insolvency of the other party C, the economic benefits derived from the above judgment shall be the sum of consolation money and the division of property as determined by the above judgment.

On the other hand, it may be a problem whether the results of the appellate court should be considered in determining the economic benefits, which are the basis for the payment of contingent remuneration,. On the other hand, the result of the judgment in the appellate court is changed according to the principle of representation in the court of the case, and the defendant receives less than the winning amount in the court of the first instance, and the economic benefits of the

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay 56,500,000 won and damages for delay, which are less than 10% of the above amount, to the plaintiff as requested by the plaintiff.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s argument 1 is that the Plaintiff’s contingent fee of KRW 560 million, which is claimed by the Plaintiff, goes against the principle of good faith or the principle of equity, unfairly excessive considering the following circumstances.

① The fiduciary relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was interrupted due to the Plaintiff’s unfaithful oral argument or preparation of oral argument.

(2)