1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, the following facts are recognized.

1) The Defendant is a Hyundai Motor Vehicle Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Motor Vehicle”).

(2) The term “non-regular car sub-chapters” refers to the term “non-regular car sub-chapters” (hereinafter referred to as the “non-regular sub-chapters”) consisting of workers belonging to the subcontractor and workers belonging to the company.

(2) On October 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the delegation of litigation (hereinafter “instant delegation contract”) with respect to the first, second, and third instances of claim cases, including confirmation of the status of workers in modern automobiles, by setting the contingent remuneration as “3% of the economic gains derived from litigation (excluding value added tax) and 500,000 won (excluding value added tax) where the delegated affairs succeed through judgment, judicial, or extra-judicial reconciliation, mediation, etc.” and having entered into a contract for the delegation of litigation with the Defendant.

3) The Plaintiff, on behalf of the Defendant, filed a lawsuit against the Seoul Central District Court to verify the status of modern automobiles, and the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant on September 19, 2014 that “The Defendant confirmed that he is an employee of modern automobiles, and Hyundai Motor is paying KRW 29,246,310, and damages for delay thereof,” (Seoul Central District Court 2010Gahap112511).

(4) On March 2016, where the appellate court had been pending in each of the instant cases, Hyundai Motor was a non-regular branch and a settlement other than judicial matters. The Defendant withdrawn the said lawsuit following a settlement other than the above, and was employed as a full-time employee of Hyundai Motor.

B. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant, who was employed as a full-time employee of modern automobiles through reconciliation, satisfies the conditions for the payment of contingent fees as stipulated in the contract of this case.