[1] The meaning of "other legal affairs" under Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act

[2] The case holding that the judgment of the court below which held that the act of receiving documents related to a lawsuit does not constitute "other legal affairs" under Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act by receiving part of the cost at the request of a civil lawsuit does not constitute "other legal affairs"

[1] Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of March 28, 2008) / [2] Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of March 28, 2008)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1039 Decided February 28, 2008

Defendant

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 2009No754 Decided May 1, 2009

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

"Other legal affairs" under Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of Mar. 28, 2008) refers to the treatment of matters that generate, modify, or extinguish legal effects, and to the treatment of matters that preserve or clarify legal effects (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1039 of Feb. 28, 2008). The handling of such legal affairs is sufficient if it is related to the handling of matters that generate, alter, extinguish, preserve, and clarify legal effects, and is not limited to the direct occurrence, modification, extinguishment, preservation, and clarification of legal effects.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, Non-Indicted 1 introduced the defendant from the same four persons during the process of a civil suit regarding inherited property between Non-Indicted 2 and the dual-type system, and discussed the issue of the above civil lawsuit against the defendant. The defendant stated that he may complete the lawsuit against Non-Indicted 1 in the month, and received 2 million won as part of the consideration, and also received copies of the documents related to the lawsuit.

As above, it is difficult to say that the Defendant’s act of directly generating, changing, extinguishing, preserving, and clarifying legal effects.

However, civil litigation is closely related to the occurrence, modification, extinguishment, preservation, and clarification of legal effects related to legal disputes between the parties. Thus, if the defendant received documents related to the lawsuit from Nonindicted Party 1 for the purpose of resolving such civil litigation or for the handling of procedural matters, such act itself constitutes an act related to the handling of matters that generate, alter, extinguish, preserve, and clarify legal effects.

Furthermore, if the defendant is able to complete the lawsuit from the non-indicted 1 in the month in which the lawsuit was filed, and 2 million won and documents related to the lawsuit were received as part of the consideration, and advises or provides information on the substantive or procedural matters necessary for the resolution of the lawsuit, the act itself constitutes the "legal counseling" under Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act.

Therefore, the lower court should have deliberated on the following: (a) whether the Defendant was able to complete the litigation in the month in which the lawsuit was filed by any means; (b) the reasons and circumstances leading up to the receipt of documents related to the lawsuit from Nonindicted Party 1; and (c) whether the Defendant provided legal advice or information to Nonindicted Party 1 in the course of receiving money and valuables in connection with the litigation case; and (c) determined whether the Defendant’s act constitutes handling of legal affairs

Nevertheless, the court below did not fully examine the above circumstances, and it is difficult to see that the defendant's act of receiving documents related to civil procedure from non-indicted 1 alone has dealt with the processing of matters that cause, modify, or extinguish legal effects or the processing of matters that preserve or clarify legal effects, and otherwise, it concluded that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant has dealt with "other legal affairs". Thus, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)