(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.10.10 2019나543

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.10.10 2019나543

손해배상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the construction cost (hereinafter “prior lawsuit”).

B. On July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) delegated an attorney-at-law with the duties of representation in the first instance court of a prior suit; (b) paid KRW 10,000,000 with the retainer fee; and (c) agreed to pay KRW 15,00,000 with the contingent fee.

C. On August 25, 2016, the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim. D.

D The plaintiff did not pay the success fee of KRW 15,00,000 and the delay damages after winning the lawsuit in the preceding lawsuit, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the payment of the success fee of KRW 15,00,000 and was awarded a favorable judgment on July 5, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant brought an unfair prior suit against the plaintiff and appointed a lawyer to respond to it, and that thereby, the plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 25,000,000 for the contingent fee of KRW 10,000 for the first time (15,00,000 for the first time) and damages for delay amounting to KRW 3,945,205 for delay.

(B) It is clear that the amount of damages is claimed as the amount of attorney's fees when claiming compensation for damages on the premise that the plaintiff's filing of the prior suit constitutes a tort, not simply seeking reimbursement of the amount of litigation costs incurred in the prior suit.

Judgment

In determining the scope of compensation for damages due to a false tort, there is no natural or factual causal relationship between the tort and the damage, and there is no ideological or legal causal relationship, i.e., proximate causal relationship.

However, under the Korean legal system that does not choose the mandatory lawyer system, it is under the Korean legal system.

유사 판례

-수원고등법원 2020.12.09 2020나20063

-서울서부지방법원 2017.10.11 2017가단7432

-서울고등법원 2019. 12. 13. 선고 2019나2035078 판결

-서울고등법원 2015.09.10 2015나4650

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.05.14 2014가단36224