1. According to the reduction of claims by this court, the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the following cases, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. 8-4-5 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall have been written in the following parts:

Therefore, since the plaintiff, who is the mandatary, puts considerable effort to perform delegated affairs with respect to the relevant lawsuit and the defendant, who is the delegating, terminates the delegation contract of this case without justifiable grounds, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the contingent remuneration agreed upon under the delegation contract of this case.

Although the Defendant’s determination on the reduction of contingent fees is recognized pursuant to the instant delegation contract, the Defendant asserts that the contingent fees should be reduced because they go against equity in light of the course of the case acceptance, process, difficulty, etc. between the parties. In the event there is an agreement between the attorney-at-law and the client regarding the attorney-at-law’s fee for the handling of delegated affairs, an attorney-at-law who completed the delegated affairs may, in principle, claim full amount of the agreed fees: Provided, That an attorney-at-law who has completed the delegated affairs may claim full amount of the agreed fees, taking into account the ordinary relationship with the client, the process of the case acceptance, the process and difficulty of the case, the degree of the case processing, the degree of effort, the value of the case handled, the specific interest the client gained by winning the case, and other various circumstances revealed in the pleading, where there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the agreed fees unfairly excessive are contrary to the principle of good faith or the concept of equity. However, the limitation of the claim for remuneration is limited to the limitation of the right to contract.