1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2, 2012, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) appointed the Plaintiff, an attorney-at-law, as C’s attorney in Supreme Court Decision 2011Na60263 Decided May 2, 2012, the Seoul High Court, which appealed by C, the Plaintiff of the instant case, in Supreme Court Decision 201Da37565, supra.

On March 14, 2013, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment on March 14, 2013 that “the part against Plaintiff C of the lower judgment is reversed, and that this part of the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.”

B. In the Seoul High Court case (Seoul High Court 2013Na22500, the case after the above reversal and remanded (hereinafter “Seoul High Court”), C, around July 2013, appointed the Plaintiff as his legal representative and paid KRW 9,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

On October 17, 2013, the lower court rendered a judgment in favor of part of the Plaintiff C in the instant case, and the final appeal filed by Defendant 2 Construction (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da9006) was dismissed on February 13, 2014.

C. After that, at the time of the contract for the delegation of a lawsuit in the case of the reversal and remanded trial with the Plaintiff, C promised to the effect that “The attorney’s fees for the reversal and remanded trial may be paid by the other party after the final and conclusive judgment, and, if not paid, the Plaintiff would return the attorney’s fees to C.” On July 4, 2014, the written decision on the confirmation of litigation costs in the case of the above civil case, stating that “The attorney’s fees for the appeal before the reversal and remanded are not included in the appellate case after the reversal and remanded, the attorney’s fees shall be treated at one instance, and only one time shall be included in the appellate case,” the Plaintiff was excluded from the litigation costs, and the Plaintiff is obligated to return the above retainer amount of KRW 9 million to C as unjust enrichment. On September 19, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court claimed against the Plaintiff on September 20, 2014.