1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the facts of recognition is that “a delegation contract was concluded” in Part 6 of the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance and paid KRW 10,000,000 to the defendant in advance,” and that “No. 24, 2012.” in the same part of the judgment of the court of first instance as “No. 23, 2012.” under the same part, the Plaintiff and B (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) present at the attendance, but dismissed the Defendant from office at the Defendant’s request on November 6, 2013, because it is identical to the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except that the Plaintiff and B (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) respectively were dismissed from office of the defendant on November 6, 2013.”

2. The parties' assertion

A. After the judgment of the appellate court that delegated the plaintiff to the defendant was rendered, the defendant paid KRW 20,00,000 to the defendant as part of the contingent fees at the defendant's request during the period of the final appeal, but thereafter the judgment of the appellate court was reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court and the judgment of the appellate court continued to exist, and the defendant's right of attorney was restored in the appellate court case after remanding the case in principle, so at the time when the plaintiff paid the above contingent fees to the defendant, the defendant did not have the due date for the contingent fees under the delegation contract of this case and

Then, the judgment was rendered again in the reversed and remanded trial. However, even if the defendant did not perform all the litigation affairs entrusted by the plaintiff in the reversed and remanded trial or did not arrive at the time of payment of contingent fees, the trust between the original defendant was damaged due to the reasons attributable to the defendant, such as filing a lawsuit seeking the payment of contingent fees against the plaintiff. For this reason, once the plaintiff et al. dismissed the defendant from the attorney before the above judgment of remand was rendered, the defendant terminated the delegation contract of this case.