(a) Whether a lawyer's right to claim remuneration, where an attorney-at-law entrusted with civil litigation representation has established a compromise other than in-courts by a method other than in-courts;

B. Nature of retainers paid by an attorney upon acceptance of a litigation case

A. In a case where an attorney-at-law entrusted with a civil case representative gives notice to the other party to perform his/her obligations before the lawsuit is instituted and to file a criminal complaint is processed, thereby resulting in the existence of compromise between the delegating party and the other party outside a trial, and thus, it is no longer necessary to file a lawsuit, even though the principal of the case and the attorney-at-law have made an explicit agreement on remuneration for the handling of affairs not brought by the lawsuit, unless there are special circumstances, the delegating party is obliged to pay the attorney-at-law reasonable remuneration for

B. The retainers or retainers fees that an attorney receives upon delegation of a litigation case shall generally be deemed as the advance payment of part of the remuneration (in this case, remuneration shall be paid regardless of the success of the litigation case, which is delegated affairs) in addition to the cost of handling delegated affairs.

Articles 686 and 688 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 81Na1622 delivered on January 19, 1982

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. We examine the defendant's assertion of right.

The gist of the ground of appeal No. 1 is that the court below acknowledged the defendant's obligation to pay remuneration in spite of the fact that the plaintiff could not be deemed to have performed the delegated contract affairs, thereby committing an unlawful act in misunderstanding the legal principles as to the delegation contract and the lack of reason. The gist of the ground of appeal No. 2 is that the court below acknowledged the amount of remuneration in this case as three million won by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the calculation basis of the amount of remuneration. However, the above ground of appeal does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 11 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

2.The following grounds shall be deemed to have been stated in the permission:

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below: (a) out of the balance of the land price sold by the defendant to the plaintiff who is an attorney-at-law to the plaintiff 1, the defendant delegated 233,159,000 won in the previous trial court's agency for the claim of 10,000 won in advance and paid 3,00,000 won in advance; (b) the amount of remuneration shall be paid in proportion to the winning amount on the basis of 10,000 won in the case of partial winning; and (c) the defendant voluntarily waived his claim, recognized, accepted, mediated, or mediated the above provisional registration; and (d) thereafter, the plaintiff sent a written notice demanding cooperation to the purchaser of the above land, who completed the above provisional registration, to the non-party 1; and (e) the defendant did not have any duty to prepare and submit a statement of complaint to the above non-party under the name of the plaintiff and the non-party 2 to the above 00-party in the above case of settlement, and notified the above fact to the plaintiff 100.

(2) In a case where an attorney-at-law entrusted with a civil suit agency notifies the other party of performance of obligations and files a criminal complaint before filing a lawsuit, thereby resulting in the conclusion of a compromise between the delegating party and the other party, and thus, it is no longer necessary to file a lawsuit, the delegating party is obligated to pay to the attorney-at-law reasonable remuneration for efforts made by the attorney-at-law to perform the above administrative affairs, unless there are special circumstances, even though the principal of the case and the attorney-at-law have made an express agreement on remuneration concerning the administrative affairs not in accordance with the above lawsuit.

However, in this case, the plaintiff is obvious in light of the fact that he was already paid KRW 3,00,000 in advance from the defendant when he was delegated a litigation case by the attorney at the court below, and the retainers or retainers fees paid by the attorney at the attorney upon delegation of the litigation case generally constitute the amount of money in the nature that he was paid as an advance payment of part of the remuneration in addition to the disposal expenses of delegated affairs (in this case, the retainers or retainers fees are usually paid regardless of the success of the litigation case which is a delegated affairs). In view of the fact that some advance payment of the remuneration during the retainers are included in the retainers of the principal litigation case entrusted by the plaintiff, the plaintiff in this case sent a letter of notification to the debtor, namely, the content of the affairs handled before the commencement of the original litigation case entrusted by the plaintiff, and the contents of the affairs submitted to the other party and the degree of the plaintiff's efforts, it is reasonable to view that the remuneration for the affairs prior to the commencement of the litigation case was sufficiently compensated out of the above retainers already paid.

(3) Ultimately, the court below's decision that it is reasonable to pay the plaintiff's remuneration of KRW 3,00,000,000, in addition to the above advance payment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of the attorney's fees, and this constitutes the ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the argument

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)