[1] Whether a representative attorney-at-law or an attorney-at-law jointly and severally liable for damages with a law firm is limited to cases where a representative attorney-at-law et al. committed a tort while conducting business (affirmative)

[2] In a case where Gap law firm entered into a delegation contract with Eul corporation and designated Eul as one of the representative attorneys-at-law, and the appeal was dismissed due to the failure to submit an appellate brief even after the deadline for submitting it was not timely filed, the case holding that Byung was jointly and severally liable for damages suffered by Eul corporation due to non-performance of contractual delegation contract, and the judgment below which held that Eul was liable for damages suffered by Eul corporation due to non-performance of contractual delegation contract

[1] Articles 50(6) and 58(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act; Article 210 of the Commercial Act; Article 35(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 50(6) and 58(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act; Article 210 of the Commercial Act; Article 35(1) of the Civil Act

Tetrax Co., Ltd. (Bae Jin Law LLC, Attorneys Kang Yong-si et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Law Firm Seo-gu et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na81482 decided July 13, 2012

The part of the lower judgment against Defendant 2 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The appeal by Defendant Law Firm Seo-gu is dismissed. The costs of appeal by Defendant Law Firm Seo-gu are assessed against the same Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. After compiling the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that Defendant 2, a representative attorney-at-law, entered into a contract of delegation of a lawsuit with respect to the case of the Supreme Court Decision 2009Da65973, Inc., Ltd., and appointed Defendant 2, a representative attorney-at-law as one of the attorneys-at-law, and that the appeal of the case was dismissed due to the failure to submit the appellate brief to the end of the period for filing the appellate brief. In so doing, the lower court held that Defendant 2 was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused to

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors of violating the law of logic and experience and free evaluation of evidence.

2. Article 50 (6) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "An attorney-at-law in charge of a law firm shall represent the law firm in the course of performing the designated affairs." Article 210 of the Commercial Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 58 (1) of the Attorney-at-law Act, provides that "Where a member representing a company has inflicted damage on another person in the course of performing his/her duties, the company shall be jointly and severally liable with such member." Article 210 of the Commercial Act provides that "Article 35 (1) of the Civil Act, which provides that "Where a member representing the company has inflicted damage on another person due to his/her duties, the company shall be jointly and severally liable with such member.

Therefore, as in the judgment of the court below, if Defendant Law Firm Seo-gu is not liable for tort liability against the plaintiff, but is liable for damages due to nonperformance of contractual obligation, it cannot be held liable for joint and several liability based on Article 58(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act and Article 210 of the Commercial Act against the representative attorney-at-law and the attorney-at-law.

Nevertheless, the lower court ordered Defendant 2 to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to nonperformance, jointly with Defendant 2, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the liability for damages under Article 210 of the Commercial Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The appeal by Defendant Seo-gu is dismissed, and the costs of appeal by Defendant Law Firm Seo-gu are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)