(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.14 2017나37866

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.14 2017나37866

성공보수

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the plaintiff "a client" is "a client"; (b) the plaintiff of the second part 14 is "a client"; (c) the "the date of this judgment" in the sixth part 14 is "the date of pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance"; and (d) the parts of the fourth part 19 to fourth part 5 are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except where the part of the fourth part 19 to fourth is dismissed as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to this part of the delegation contract of this case, the defendant promised that "A shall be exempted from attorney's fees" to the defendant at the time of the delegation contract of this case. It stated 20% of the "economic benefits" acquired by winning the contract of this case, not the "economic benefits" acquired by winning the contract of this case as to the delegation contract of this case. Since there is no property to be executed to C, the plaintiff cannot be paid contingent fees to the plaintiff. However, in ordinary cases, the "economic benefits" acquired by winning the contract of this case is the winning amount indicated in the text of the judgment, and the value itself is indicated in the monetary unit in the text of the judgment, and it is actually used as the same meaning as the "economic benefits" value. The plaintiff's assertion that the above agreement of this case was asserted by the defendant or the terms of "economic benefits" of this case are insufficient, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff asserted that the contract of this case was "economic benefits" of this case.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and all appeals of the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.25 2016가단5223367

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.03.22 2017가합581765

-서울고등법원 2014.11.20 2014나22590

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.04.06 2020나74773

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.13 2017가단5050351