beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as its annual 5% from October 24, 2014 to March 25, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 1, 2011, the Defendant was imposed corporate tax of KRW 1,104,436,527 and filed a lawsuit to revoke the disposition of revocation of imposition of corporate tax (Seoul District Court 2012Guhap609) with the Daejeon District Court after going through the appeal procedure, but was sentenced to the judgment of the Plaintiff’s failure on November 7, 2012, and thereafter appealed to the Daejeon High Court (Seoul High Court 2012Nu2847).
Accordingly, on July 31, 2013, the Defendant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision 2013Du15729, hereinafter “instant final appeal”). On February 12, 2014, the Plaintiff, who is continuing the said final appeal, entered into a contract of delegation of a lawsuit (hereinafter “instant contract of delegation of a lawsuit”) with the Plaintiff at KRW 10,000,000, a successful fee of KRW 10,000,000, and around that time, paid the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,000.
B. On February 12, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a letter of delegation of lawsuit to the Supreme Court on February 12, 2014, and prepared and submitted each supplementary appellate brief on February 28, 2014 and June 24, 2014. The Supreme Court rendered a judgment that reversed the lower judgment on July 24, 2014, and remanded the case to the Daejeon High Court.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to pay 10% of the corporate tax imposed by the Defendant in the event that the lower judgment is reversed in the course of concluding the instant litigation delegation contract with the Defendant, as the contingent fee. Since the Supreme Court rendered a judgment that reversed the lower judgment on July 24, 2014, the Defendant shall pay 110,443,652 (i.e., corporate tax 1,104,436,527 x 10%) to the Plaintiff.
B. The main point of the defendant's assertion is that B, the representative attorney of the plaintiff, is helpful for winning the case due to the chief Justice's pro rata Justice.