beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 41,80,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 24, 2017 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. The allegations and judgment of the parties
(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;
(However, the "creditor" is deemed to be the "defendant" for the plaintiff and the "debtor". 【The grounds for recognition】 Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 to 5
B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not perform his duties under the advisory contract of this case first. However, according to the evidence mentioned above, the main purpose of the advisory contract of this case is to prepare a contract related to the execution of legal affairs against the defendant and the preparation of a report on legal affairs related to this transaction in relation to the transaction that a third party takes over the defendant's share, and the plaintiff's performance of duties related thereto is sufficiently recognized, so this part of the argument is not acceptable. 2) The defendant argues that the result of the plaintiff's offer is not for the defendant, but for the buyer's side, so the remuneration of this case should be reduced
In principle, in cases where there is an agreement with the client on the remuneration for the handling of delegated affairs by the attorney-at-law, barring special circumstances, an attorney-at-law who has completed the delegated affairs may claim the agreed amount of remuneration in full, barring special circumstances. However, in cases where there are special circumstances to deem that the agreed amount of remuneration unfairly excessive in excess of the agreed amount of remuneration is contrary to the principle of good faith and equity, the attorney-at-law who has completed the delegated affairs may claim only the amount of remuneration within the reasonable scope, which is acknowledged as reasonable exceptional. The burden of proof on the existence of special circumstances lies in the assertion that the agreed amount of remuneration is unfairly excessive.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da60172 Decided August 17, 2012, etc.).