1. The part against the plaintiff, which orders additional payment under the judgment of the first instance, shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation in this part is as follows: (a) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the “1. Basic Facts” and the “Attachment 3”) is the same as the previous part of the judgment of the court of second instance (including the “1. Basic Facts” and the “Attachment 3”), and therefore, it is cited by the main text of

2. The grounds for the Court’s argument in this part are as follows: (a) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of the first instance ("2. The parties’ assertion" of the suspension of the 10th page) is the same as the previous one; (b) thus, the parties’ assertion is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

3. Determination

A. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (whether the pertinent provision is applicable) is identical to the previous re-examination of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Whether the performance fee is reduced according to the good faith principle 1) In cases where there is an agreement between a lawyer and a client as to the fee for delegated affairs of an attorney-at-law, an attorney-at-law who completed delegated affairs may, in principle, claim the full amount

However, in light of the ordinary relationship with the requester, the circumstance of the acceptance of the case, the progress and difficulty of the handling of the case, the degree of effort, the value of the subject matter of lawsuit, the specific interest that the client gained in favor of the case, and other circumstances revealed in the pleading, only the amount of remuneration within the scope deemed reasonable exceptionally in exceptional cases where there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the amount of the agreed fee unfairly excessive is contrary to the good faith principle or the concept of equity.

However, such restriction on the claim for remuneration is limited to the principle of freedom of contract, so the court should clearly state a reasonable ground therefor (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da35833, May 17, 2018, etc.). In addition, the burden of proof as to the existence of such special circumstance is agreed.