beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this case in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following addition.
2. The addition;
(a) the following shall be added between 4, 4, 17 and 18, of the first instance judgment:
4) Accordingly, D appealed on the ground of unfair sentencing. The appellate court (Seoul Central District Court 2016No6) rendered a judgment on April 22, 2016 sentenced D to imprisonment with labor for one year and four months, and became final and conclusive around that time.
A person shall be appointed.
(b) the following shall be added between conduct 18 and 19 of the first instance judgment:
3) The Defendants asserted the violation of the limitation on the acceptance of case by the Plaintiff’s attorney, who appointed the Plaintiff as Defendant D’s defense counsel in the appellate court of the Seoul Central District Court case No. 2015Da1285 (2016No6) as seen earlier, and act on behalf of the Plaintiff in this case again constitutes a ground for restriction on the acceptance of case under Article 31(1)1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and thus, the litigation is null and void.
Article 31 (1) 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that an attorney-at-law may not perform his/her duties in a case in which the other party to the case has consented to the acceptance of an award from one of the parties, and in light of the legislative purport of the above provision, the same attorney-at-law is also prohibited from performing his/her duties in a civil case where the same attorney-at-law has been appointed as a counsel for the defendant in a criminal case and has performed his/her duties, such as defense activities, etc., in which the same issue is included later, and later,
(Supreme Court Decision 2003Da15556 Decided May 30, 2003). However, this is related to the defendant in a special relationship between the lawyer and the defendant.