The meaning of "agent" under Article 109 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act and the judicial effect of "legal act for the purpose of acquiring profits" under the same Article (= null and void)

Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 103 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1802 Decided April 28, 1987 (Gong1987, 881) Supreme Court Decision 89Meu10514 Decided May 11, 1990 (Gong1990, 1252) Supreme Court Decision 99Do2193 Decided December 24, 199 (Gong2000Sang, 349) (Gong2000Sang, 125) Decided November 13, 2002

Dongyang Special Public Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Seoyang, Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Dok-Jak Village Apartment Residents' Council (Attorney Kim Jong-Un, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2009Na9001 Decided November 12, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the purport of Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which prohibits a person, other than an attorney-at-law, from participating in the conduct of legal affairs and maintains an attorney-at-law system, the term "agent" under the above Act includes, as a matter of course, not only the act of providing legal services in the name of his/her agent, but also the act of using legal knowledge on behalf of his/her agent, or the act of using legal knowledge on behalf of his/her agent, or the act of using his/her external knowledge on behalf of his/her own as if he/she did not take the form of a representative but also the act of doing so on behalf of his/her own outside form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do2193, Dec. 24, 199; 2002Do2725, Nov. 13, 2002). In addition, the above Article 199 provides that a juristic act for the purpose of acquiring benefits provided for in the above Act as a mandatory law has the social character itself and thus denying its validity (see, 198.8.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff's act of taking part in the plaintiff's lawsuit constitutes "agent" under Article 109 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and since the agreement that the plaintiff shall pay a penalty in case where the defendant does not contract the defect repair to the plaintiff after the winning of the lawsuit is invalid as acts against social order, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the above agreement is valid is invalid, and there is no reason to further examine the remainder of the contract. In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of an agency agreement under Article 109 (1) of the Attorney-at-law Act or the legal principles as to the validity of the judgment of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts and the validity of the judgment of the court below, which is contrary to the legal principles of the court below.

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

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)