(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.02.18 2015나2032828

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.02.18 2015나2032828

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the content stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the "including the serial number" of No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance to the following "including the serial number" of No. 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Around April 29, 2002, the summary of the Defendants’ assertion, Defendant Bank requested the Plaintiff’s legal representative (LLC) to review the draft service contract (No. 18-3) of this case, and Company A prepared a written review opinion regarding the service contract (draft) of this case. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff delegated the legal representative of the lawsuit of this case to Limited Liability Law Firm A, thereby filing the lawsuit of this case on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the limited liability law firm A filed the lawsuit of this case on behalf of the Plaintiff. The attorney-at-law cannot perform his duties with respect to cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Since the lawsuit of this case is null and void as an unlawful procedural act in violation of the provisions on delegation restriction prescribed in the case delegated by the other party to the case where the party to the case, who received the representation from the other party, has consented thereto, it is unlawful as it has been filed under a lack of attorney’

B. Article 31 (1) 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act prohibits an attorney from performing his/her duties in cases where the other party to a case consented to the acceptance by one of the parties to the case. The reason behind prohibiting an attorney-at-law from performing his/her duties in this case is that an attorney-at-law first performs his/her duties in trust and reliance on one of the parties who delegated the case, and lose his/her dignity.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-변호사법 제31조

-변호사법 제31조 제1항 제1호

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2021.04.01 2019나2058552

-대법원 2018.11.29 2018다22077

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.29 2012가합80182 (1)

-대법원 2003. 11. 28. 선고 2003다41791 판결

-대법원 2018.11.29.선고 2018다22077 판결