Where an attorney-at-law fails to make an agreement to specify his/her remuneration and amount in delegating the handling of the case, the attorney-at-law's winning claim;

In entrusting the settlement of a dispute to an attorney-at-law, it is reasonable to view that there is an implied agreement to pay the amount of remuneration for the case, unless there is any special circumstance such as the non-existence of an agreement on the remuneration and amount, etc., and in case the case in question becomes final and conclusive as a winning and the case is returned to the same case, an attorney-at-law may claim a winning fee in accordance with Article 686 of the Civil Act, unless there is a special agreement that the case shall be the unpaid remuneration

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 75Na121 delivered on July 4, 1975

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The duties of an attorney-at-law are to perform acts related to lawsuits or other general legal affairs upon the commission of a party-related person or the appointment of a government office (see Article 2 of the Attorney-at-law Act). Since an attorney-at-law is not clearly entitled to receive unfair fees (Article 7 (2) of the same Act). It is reasonable to view that an attorney-at-law has an implied agreement to pay the attorney-at-law fees unless there are special circumstances, such as the absence of an agreement to specify the fees and amount, even though he/she did not agree with the attorney-at-law in settling the dispute case, he/she shall be free fees. Unless there is a special agreement that the case shall be decided as winning the case at the time when the case becomes final and conclusive, he/she may claim a contingent fee pursuant to Article 686 of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 65Da1718, Nov. 9, 1965).

2. The judgment of the court of the first instance that accepted the payment of KRW 295,00 as a winning reward for a considerable amount of KRW 290,000, dismissed the defendant's appeal. This comparison with the judgment of the court of first instance is clear that it is a clerical error of KRW 295,00,000, which shall not be a ground for objection on the ground that the ground for the correction of the judgment is inconsistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the second point of the lawsuit is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)