1. All appeals filed by Defendant B and Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Law Firm (with Limited Liability) are dismissed.

2. The principal lawsuit out of the costs of appeal.

1. Grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance for the entry of this case in this case;

C. 3) “ May 20, 2016” in paragraph 3 (3) (No. 5 pages 7) (No. 7) as “ November 9, 2015”; and 1-1

C. (4) The phrase, “ June 30, 2016.” (No. 5 & No. 14, “ May 20, 2016.” (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation’s counterclaim”) in paragraph (4) of the same Article, as Defendant B jointly exercises the right of set-off with Defendant Corporation, the phrase “Defendant Corporation’s set-off defense” in paragraph (3) below is deemed to read “Defendant’s set-off defense,” and the Defendants’ appeal as the primary grounds for appeal is set-off by the third.

B. As to the assertion on “other remuneration claims” under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, in addition to the additional examination under paragraph 2 below, and thus, the same shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Determination on the defendants' main grounds for appeal

A. Defendant B’s assertion of the Defendants was the representative of the Defendant Corporation, and did not fully recognize that the Defendant Corporation is acting as an agent in the case beyond the scope stipulated in the initial delegation agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Corporation (hereinafter “other cases”). This can also be seen in light of the fact that the Defendants agreed on the contingent remuneration separately while accepting the case of revoking the fraudulent act against J Co., Ltd. on April 6, 2015.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that a free delegation agreement has been concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant corporation with respect to other cases, and if such a delegation agreement has not been concluded, the defendant corporation may claim reasonable remuneration for the conduct on behalf of the plaintiff within the scope of its business as an ex officio merchant or constructive merchant under the Commercial Act.

B. (1) First, according to the evidence No. 20, Defendant corporation was delegated with the revocation of fraudulent act against J corporation and the settlement of civil and criminal cases against R on April 6, 2015 between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and the commencement amount is now existing.