logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.05.15 2018나61351
용역비
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following '2 or additional judgment' as to the assertion that the defendant newly claims or emphasizes in the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Prior to the merits, the Defendant asserted that, although the Plaintiff’s claim was of the nature of the attorney’s contingent fee or honorarium claim, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case should be dismissed on the ground of its own without any justifiable reason. However, in the performance lawsuit, the person who asserted as the right to demand performance has standing to sue, and the person who asserted as the right to demand performance has standing to be the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the Defendant do not actually need to be or is the right to demand performance, and the grounds such as the Defendant’s claim are to be determined within the merits

B. A summary of the argument as to whether a special contract for contingent fees exists, such as the purport of the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff and the defendant had a contract to pay contingent fees in cases where the four issues of the lawsuit delegated by the plaintiff and the defendant are accepted in the court, and that the defendant has no obligation to pay contingent fees except for the amount of KRW 4,00,000 already paid, since only one of the issues was accepted in the court. (2) The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the overall purport of arguments, are as follows: (i) the lawsuit of the Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap25057 case (hereinafter "the delegated case of this case") delegated by the plaintiff and the defendant, is the legitimacy of the removal disposition against the defendant; (ii) the res judicata effect of the judgment affects the subject matter of lawsuit; and (iii) the four issues of the delegated case of this case asserted by the defendant

arrow