[1] The amount of fees that an attorney may request for the delegated affairs of a lawsuit

[2] Where only one of the parties files an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance that partially dismissed one claim, the scope of the appellate court’s trial and the criteria for determining whether to change any disadvantage or disadvantage (i.e., the text of the judgment), and the time at which the lawsuit becomes final and conclusive for the portion that is not subject

[3] Whether there is a benefit in the final appeal filed on the grounds that there is a complaint against the reasoning of the judgment regarding the entire winning judgment (negative)

[1] Articles 2 and 686 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 415 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da57626 delivered on April 25, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1945) Supreme Court Decision 200Da50190 Delivered on April 12, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1085) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da58200 delivered on April 10, 1998 (Gong2002Da67321 Delivered on April 11, 2003 (Gong203Sang, 1165), Supreme Court Decision 2004Da2151, 2168 Delivered on June 10, 2004 (Gong3] Supreme Court Decision 91Da406939 delivered on March 27, 1992; 2009Da73829 delivered on March 27, 2009)

Plaintiff (Attorney Young Young-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Incheon District Court Decision 2010Na10818 Decided January 25, 2011

1. The part of the judgment of the court below that ordered payment shall be reversed, and the part that ruled against the plaintiff corresponding to the same amount among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10,275,000 won and 5% per annum from October 16, 201 to January 25, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The defendant's primary and conjunctive appeal shall be dismissed.

4. One-half of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal

In principle, in cases where there is an agreement with the client on the remuneration for the handling of delegated affairs of an attorney-at-law, an attorney-law who completed the delegated affairs may claim the agreed amount of remuneration, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance. However, in cases where there are special circumstances to deem that the agreed amount of remuneration unfairly excessive and excessive and contrary to the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of equity is unreasonable, the attorney-at-law who completed the delegated affairs may claim only the amount of remuneration within the reasonable scope (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da57626, Apr. 25, 1995; 200Da50190, Apr. 12, 2002).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, and determined that the contingent remuneration under the civil case agreement of this case shall be calculated based on 673,951,176 won expanded as the claim of this case, and considering the details of the claim of this case, the amount of the claim, the progress of the lawsuit, etc., the contingent remuneration under the civil case agreement of this case seems to be unfairly excessive and contrary to the principle of good faith. Thus, the court below determined that the contingent remuneration under the civil

In light of relevant provisions, legal principles, and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of good faith

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Where only one of the parties has filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed part of a claim, the entire claim that was the object of the judgment of the court of first instance is indivisible, but the scope of the judgment of the appellate court is limited to the scope of appeal filed by the appellant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da58200, Apr. 10, 1998; 2002Da67321, Apr. 11, 2003). In addition, the appellate court may not change the judgment of the court of first instance to a disadvantage beyond the limit of appeal filed by the party. In this case, the issue of whether the change is prohibited shall be determined as a standard for the judgment that has res judicata effect, and there is no relation with the change of judgment among the reasons for the judgment that does not have res judicata effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da58200, Apr. 10, 1998).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the plaintiff accepted 30 million won for contingent fees under the criminal case agreement of this case, 47,176,582 won for 10,176,582 won for 20% interest per annum from 160% for 20% interest per annum to 30% interest per annum from 160,000 won for 10,000 won for 20,000 won for 160,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 16,000 won for 15,000 won for 16,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 16,000 won for 15,000 won for 19,000 won for 20,000 won for 16,000 won for 1,000.

However, as the Plaintiff appeals against the losing part of the judgment of the first instance, the entire claim of this case, which was subject to adjudication of the judgment of the first instance, is transferred to the appellate court. However, since the scope of adjudication of the appellate court of this case is limited to the part against the Plaintiff among the judgment of the first instance, the court below’s revocation of the judgment of the first instance corresponding to that part and acceptance of the additional recognized part of the claim

However, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on the ground that it cannot change the judgment of the court of first instance to the defendant who did not appeal and to the plaintiff who is the appellant without admitting the additional part of the plaintiff's claim as to which the plaintiff's claim was additionally recognized. It is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the appellate court's judgment and the principle of prohibition of change of disadvantage. The ground of appeal pointing this out

On the other hand, the court below accepted the defendant's defense for payment, and judged that the amount of the award of the court of first instance remains at the rate of 20% per annum from October 16, 2010 to the date of full payment. The part of the award of the court of first instance is not within the scope of the judgment of the appellate court of this case. However, if the court below rendered a decision as to the part, it is necessary to revoke the part and make a declaration for the termination of the lawsuit, but it is not necessary to revoke the part and make a declaration for the termination of the lawsuit, since the court below dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's claim as to the part, it is not necessary to make a declaration for the termination of the lawsuit.

2. The defendant's decision on the supplementary appeal is examined ex officio.

Since an appeal is seeking revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself in favor of himself/herself, the appeal against the judgment of the court below in favor of him/her cannot be permitted as there is no benefit of filing an appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da76298, Jul. 22, 2003, etc.). In such cases, even if there is a complaint on the grounds of the judgment, there is no benefit of appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da40696, Mar. 27, 1992, etc.).

According to the records, the defendant sought the dismissal of the part cited in the judgment of the court of first instance to the effect that he is the primary secondary object, and the defendant sought to pay the plaintiff the balance of the cited amount in the judgment of first instance, 418,036 won and damages for delay, and damages for delay, 10,275,000 won and damages for delay.

As to the judgment of the court of first instance which partly accepted the plaintiff's claim, only the plaintiff appealed against the part against himself, and the defendant did not appeal or incidental appeal. The court below dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and the defendant won the appeal at the court of first instance. Thus, even if there is a complaint on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, it cannot be said that the court of first instance makes an incidental appeal to the purport that it seeks to dismiss the part cited in the judgment of the court of first instance or to change the order so that it is disadvantageous to himself/herself, and therefore, the defendant's primary and conjunctive appeal is all unlawful (However, the judgment of the defendant as to the part of the judgment of the court of

3. Conclusion

Of the lower judgment, the part of the lower court’s judgment regarding KRW 10,275,00, and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from October 16, 201 to January 25, 201, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, is reversed, and this part is so sufficient for this court to directly render a judgment pursuant to Article 437 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff 5% per annum from October 16, 201 to January 25, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The part of the lower judgment regarding the Plaintiff’s losses, and the remainder of the Plaintiff’s conjunctive appeal shall be dismissed, as it is so decided by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)