[1] The contents of the attorney's duty of care at the stage of termination of delegated affairs

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the amount equivalent to the amount that the client could have obtained through the appeal constitutes ordinary damages in proximate causal relation with the attorney's breach of duty of care, where the right to appeal for the part against the losing part is extinguished after the right to appeal for the violation of duty of care due to the attorney's breach of duty of care, but the other party's withdrawal of appeal becomes null and void, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive

[1] In general, a mandatary shall fulfill the duty of due care of a good manager according to the terms of delegation. In particular, an attorney-at-law who is delegated a legal representative has the duty to protect the client's rights in good faith based on professional legal knowledge and experience in performing the delegated affairs. The scope of specific delegated affairs is determined by the terms of delegation contract between the attorney-at-law and the client. However, in a case where a judgment of loss was rendered at the end of delegated affairs, if there was an error in calculating disadvantageously to the client by examining the said judgment even in the absence of special rights from the client, the client has the duty to explain and advise the client in detail about the contents of the

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the amount equivalent to the amount that the client could have obtained through the appeal constitutes ordinary damages in proximate causal relation with the attorney's breach of duty of care, where the right to appeal for the part against the losing part is extinguished after the right to appeal for the violation of duty of care due to the attorney's breach of duty of care, but the other party's withdrawal of appeal becomes null and void due to the other party's withdrawal of appeal.

[1] Articles 680 and 681 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 390, 393, and 681 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da9479 decided Nov. 22, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 144)

The grandchildren et al. and two others

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 2001Na3064 delivered on December 4, 2003

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. In general, a mandatary shall perform his/her duty of care as a good manager according to the terms of delegation. In particular, an attorney-at-law entrusted with the power of attorney-at-law has a duty to protect the client's rights in good faith based on professional legal knowledge and experience in performing the delegated affairs. The scope of specific delegated affairs is determined by the terms of delegation contract between the attorney-at-law and the client (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da9479, Nov. 22, 2002). However, in a case where there was a judgment against the client at the end of delegated affairs, where there is no special right from the client to appeal, if there is an error in the client's calculation unfavorable to the client by inspecting the said judgment, and if there is an error in the client's calculation at the time of appeal, the client

In the same purport, the court below found that the defendant, who is an attorney-at-law entrusted with the lawsuit by the plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit claiming damages against a limited liability company on behalf of the plaintiffs (Seoul District Court 93 Gohap786) on April 7, 1994, which was sentenced to partial winning of the plaintiffs on the ground of traffic accident. The above judgment did not err in calculating the lost income of the deceased's predecessor, for 96 months from July 1, 1994 to June 30, 202, which caused the plaintiff's failure to inform the defendant that the defendant did not appeal against the above part of the judgment against the non-legal liability company and caused the plaintiff's fault to be removed from the court below's 32 months from July 1, 2002 to February 28, 2005. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim against the non-legal liability company's 94% difference between the plaintiff's non-legal losses and the plaintiff's non-legal losses's non-legal losses's 94.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the duty of care in good faith as alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. The court below held that if the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive because the defendant filed an incidental appeal against the part against which the plaintiffs lost as an attorney-at-law's violation of the above fiduciary duty, after the right to appeal was extinguished, and the other party withdraws an appeal and thus the incidental appeal becomes null and void, the part of the part against which the plaintiffs lost through appeal was partially revoked and the claim of the plaintiffs by the part against which the plaintiffs was accepted, constitutes an ordinary damage in proximate causal relation with the defendant's violation of fiduciary duty. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. In light of the records, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to proximate causal relation with ordinary damages caused by the violation of fiduciary duty of the attorney-at-law as alleged in the ground for appeal, and on the other hand, the client of the lawsuit did not carefully examine the contents of the judgment after receiving the original copy of the judgment from the defendant, and did not discover any error of the judgment, the court below's judgment is also acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)