The amount of fees that an attorney may request on delegated affairs in a lawsuit

In principle, in cases where there is an agreement with the client on the remuneration for the handling of delegated affairs of an attorney-at-law, barring any special circumstance, an attorney-at-law who has completed the delegated affairs may claim the agreed amount of remuneration in full, barring special circumstances. However, the attorney-at-law who has completed the delegated affairs shall be allowed to claim only the amount of remuneration within the reasonable scope exceptionally deemed reasonable in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances to deem that the agreed amount of remuneration is unreasonable and contrary to the principle of good faith or the principle of equity in light of the relationship between the client and the client, the background leading up to the conclusion of the case, the amount of the case, the progress and difficulty of the case handling, the degree of effort, the value

Articles 2 and 686 of the Civil Act, Article 19 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da2722 delivered on February 29, 1972 (No. 201Da30382 delivered on February 9, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 940)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Law Firm Dong-dong, Attorney Shin Chang-dong, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Park Hung Industrial Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na13086 delivered on October 28, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the ground of appeal by the defendant's attorney

In light of the records, the court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, and agreed to pay the contingent fees orally to the plaintiff in the lawsuit of claiming ownership transfer registration on the ground of repurchase filed by the defendant against the Korea National Housing Corporation, but at the appellate court again delegated the representative of the lawsuit to the plaintiff, and prepared an agreement to pay the contingent fees as in the first instance court (Evidence A). The court of first instance also delegated the representative of the lawsuit to the plaintiff, and recognized the fact that the plaintiff submitted the appellate brief. The court of first instance did not agree on the contingent fees at the time of delegation of the representative of the lawsuit by the appellate court, or rejected the defendant's argument that there was no delegation of the representative of the lawsuit by the court of first instance in the appellate court only requested the submission of the petition for appeal at the time of delegation of the representative of the lawsuit by the appellate court, or that there was no delegation of the representative of the lawsuit at the court of final appeal at the time of the appellate court's appellate court's request for the submission of

No theory is accepted because all of the judgment of the court below is merely slaping off the facts acknowledged by the court below on the premise that the determination of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, which is a fact-finding court, or that the facts are inconsistent

2. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

In principle, in cases where there is an agreement with the client as to the remuneration for the handling of delegated affairs of a lawyer, an attorney-at-law who completed the delegated affairs may claim the agreed amount of remuneration, barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance. However, in cases where there are special circumstances to deem that the agreed amount of remuneration unfairly excessive and excessive and contrary to the principle of good faith and the principle of equity, the attorney-at-law who completed the delegated affairs may claim only the amount of remuneration within the reasonable scope (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 71Da272, Feb. 29, 1972; 92Da30382, Feb. 9, 193; 92Da30382, Feb. 9, 1993).

In light of the records, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) after the plaintiff accepted a claim for transfer registration of ownership from the court of first instance for repurchase against the Korea National Housing Corporation by the defendant; (b) the progress of the lawsuit of the case from the court of first instance to the court of final appeal; and (c) the commencement of the lawsuit and the amount of the contingent fees in the case following the rules on the attorney fees set by the attorney-at-law association to which the plaintiff belongs; (d) the process of accepting the case; (e) the process of the case; (e) the process of the lawsuit; (f) the process of the lawsuit; (f) the process of the lawsuit; (f) the process of the lawsuit; (f) the process of the lawsuit; (f) the process of the defendant's dismissal; (f) the remuneration calculated by the rules on the above attorney fees standards; and (f) other various circumstances revealed in the argument in this case, the contingent fees agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be acknowledged as effective in light of the good faith principle; and (g) the above opinion is justified; and (g) the plaintiff did not err in the appellate judgment.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)