logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018.06.19 2017다240588
양수금
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In principle, in cases where an agreement is made with the client on the remuneration for the handling of delegated duties as to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal by the attorney, an attorney-at-law who completed the delegated duties may claim the agreed amount of remuneration, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances. However, the attorney-at-law who has completed the delegated duties may claim only the amount of remuneration within the extent deemed reasonable exceptionally in exceptional cases where special circumstances exist to deem that the agreed amount of remuneration is unreasonable and contrary to the principle of good faith or the principle of equity in light of the relationship with the client, the background leading up to the attorney-at-law’s lawsuit, the amount of retainers, the progress and difficulty in the handling of the case, the degree of effort, the value of the subject

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da50190 Decided April 12, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2011Da18864 Decided July 11, 2013, etc.). In a case on refund of equity, the lower court appears to have determined that, as an attorney-at-law retired from a bath operation business before the commencement of the bath operation business, only the portion was the main issue, and that there is no dispute over the partnership property subject to settlement as in ordinary partnership property-related cases. Although a lawsuit on refund of equity interest reaches 1.5 billion won, the amount is merely the amount calculated based on E’s abstract and vague calculation rather than the amount derived from a reasonable ground, and that D’s pleading contents before E withdraws from the bath operation business commencement do not vary depending on the claim amount of E, and compared to the frequency of submission of D’s answers and preparatory documents (i.e., the number of times during which the case was submitted and the period during which the case was presented).

arrow