Judicial effect of a juristic act contrary to Article 48 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Article 48 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is a mandatory law, which aims to acquire profits provided for in the same law, and the legal act itself has the anti-social nature and is denied judicial effect.

Article 48 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 103 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants, Defendant 1 and 1 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na1348 delivered on December 23, 1977

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

(1) We examine the Defendants’ legal representative’ ground of appeal No. 1.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the above 0-party Kim Jong-jin borrowed money from 00,000 won for the above 10-party Kim Jong-jin and completed provisional registration on this case's real estate, and that the above 1-party filed a lawsuit against the above 1-party for cancellation of provisional registration against the above 0-party Kim Jong-cheon, and that the plaintiff did not object to the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and counter-registration at the first instance court against the above 4-party, and that the above case's transfer registration was revoked at his own discretion and at the above 0-party Lee Jong-jin's own effort and expense, and that the above case's transfer registration was revoked from 0,000 won to 1-6,000 won for the above 1-6,000 won for the above 1-6,000 won for the above 1-6,000 won for the above 1-6,000 won for the above 1-6,005,00.

The court below's decision is just because the above agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 on December 23, 1975, which was made between the plaintiff and the defendant 1, is based on the fact that the defendant, who is not an attorney-at-law, won the plaintiff with his own expenses and effort, and the plaintiff will receive his opinion. Thus, Article 48 of the Attorney-at-law Act is contrary to the law. The legal act aimed at acquiring profits provided for in Article 48 of the same Act, as a mandatory law, has the anti-social nature, and its judicial effect is denied. Thus, the above decision of the court below is just.

Therefore, there is no error of misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 48 of the Attorney-at-Law Act in the original judgment.

(2) We examine the second ground for appeal.

The court below rejected the evidence in its reasoning consistent with the defendant's assertion that the defendant 1 purchased the real estate of this case from December 27, 1975 to 2,702,00 won, and did not accept such assertion. However, the court below's examination of the evidence at the time of the court below's decision cannot be readily concluded that the violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence in the process of the above fact-finding by the court below is against the rules of evidence. This issue is without merit.

(3) Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)