2016, 45 Wages, etc.

A

Law Firm B

May 26, 2016

June 23, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 343,200,000 won with 15% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. From around 2008 to April 2013, the Plaintiff worked as a secretary in the Defendant (the name of the Plaintiff was a law firm C.A. on February 23, 2012, changed to a law firm D, and on March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff changed to a law firm B. hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant”).

B. At the time of February 2009, the Plaintiff agreed that the Plaintiff shall pay 30% of the contingent fees received by the Defendant and the attorney-at-law to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”) for the case (such as damages for apartment defects, etc. that the Plaintiff accepted by the representative attorney-at-law of the Defendant at the time of February 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, as the Defendant’s employee, provided support for the Defendant to accept apartment defect litigation and acquired the contingent fees in the civil procedure that the Defendant accepted as such. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in the purport of the claim, which is 30% of the contingent fees, and damages for delay thereof, in accordance with the instant agreement stipulating the Plaintiff’s wages.

(b) the Defendant;

(1) The plaintiff is not the defendant's employee.

(2) The instant agreement is null and void in violation of Article 34(1)2 and (5) of the Attorney-at-Law Act. (3) The instant agreement is a conditional legal act that the Plaintiff is obligated to complete the pertinent lawsuit while working in the Defendant, and the Plaintiff did not fulfill the said condition.

3. Determination

A. We examine whether the agreement in this case constitutes a juristic act with a content contrary to good morals and other social order and thus null and void.

(1) Article 34 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "no person shall give or promise to give money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits in return for introducing, arranging or inducing a party to a legal case or other interested persons to a specific attorney-at-law or his/her office staff members, or introducing, arranging or inducing a party to a legal case or other interested persons to a specific attorney-at-law or his/her office staff members, or in return for receiving or demanding money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits." Furthermore, Article 34 (2) of the Attorney-at-law Act provides that "no attorney-at-law or his/her office staff members shall offer or promise to offer money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits in return for introducing, arranging or soliciting a legal case or the acceptance of

(2) The above provision aims to prevent a person, other than an attorney-at-law, to ensure expertise, fairness, and reliability in handling legal affairs (see Constitutional Court Decision 2012Hun-Ba62, Feb. 28, 2013), and ultimately to achieve the mission of an attorney-at-law to protect fundamental human rights and realize social justice by allowing an attorney-at-law with public nature to perform his/her duties independently and freely.

(3) Criminal sanctions are imposed on Article 34 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which provides for prohibition of partnership with a person who is not a lawyer, such as "a imprisonment for not more than 7 years" or a fine not exceeding 50 million won" (Article 109 subparagraph 2), and a person who violates the above provision or a third party who knows that it is so shall confiscate money, valuables, or other benefits received by him (Article 116).

(4) As to the instant case, the instant agreement provides that the Plaintiff, the head of the office of the attorney-at-law office, should receive part of the success fees in the relevant lawsuit from the Defendant, and shall introduce, mediate, or induce the parties to the apartment defect lawsuit or other interested persons to the Defendant, who is an attorney-at-law, and the Defendant promises to provide the Plaintiff with money and valuables in return for introducing, arranging, or inducing the acceptance of the case.

(5) Therefore, the instant agreement violates Article 34(1) and (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which is a mandatory provision, and thus, (i) the legislative purpose of the pertinent provision to prevent the appearance of a person who is not an attorney-at-law who commits an act contrary to the purpose of the attorney-at-law system, and to restrict the attorney-at-law from pursuing the number of legal cases in collusion, (L) the public nature of the attorney-at-law's duties, (c) criminal punishment against the person who violates the pertinent provision and its profits are confiscated, and (ii) the agreement in violation of the above provision results in the deviation of the legislative purpose of the Attorney-at-law Act for eradicating the so-called legal hub, and thus, the instant agreement is null and void pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Act.

B. Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the invalid agreement.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Kang Han-ju

Judge Choi Jin-hun