Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others (Attorney Shin Young-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

December 3, 2015

1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants’ respective KRW 749,99 and each of these KRW 749,99 against Defendant 1, Defendant 2 against Defendant 3, Defendant 3 from May 23, 2014; and Defendant 5% per annum from May 27, 2014 to January 14, 2016; and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

B. Defendant 1’s 5,00,000 and 15% interest per annum from May 1, 2015 to January 14, 2016; and

sub-payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 90% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 52,820,000 and KRW 22,820,000 from April 15, 2014, KRW 30,000, and KRW 30,000 from April 24, 2015 to the date of the pronouncement of the instant judgment; KRW 5% per annum from the day following the service of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of April 24, 2015; KRW 20,000 to the day of full payment; and KRW 20,000 to the day of full payment; and KRW 5% per annum from the day following the service of the application for modification of the above purport of the claim and the cause of the claim to the day of the instant judgment; and KRW 20% per annum from the day following the day of full payment to the day of the instant judgment; and KRW 30

1. Facts of recognition;

A. There are opinions among the members of the Korean Faculty Mutual Aid Association (hereinafter “Mutual Aid Association”) to file a lawsuit for damages against the Republic of Korea. The Defendants led and led by the Defendants that “I wish to delegate the lawsuit to the Plaintiff, an attorney-at-law, and the member wishing to participate in the lawsuit, send necessary documents and expenses to the Plaintiff,” and according to such announcement, 307 members of the Mutual Aid Association sent documents and expenses, such as a certified copy or abstract of resident registration, to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, etc.

B. The Defendants, around March 2014, entered into a contract with the Plaintiff (1946 students) on the first instance trial of the damages claim case against Korea with Defendant 2’s high school as well as an attorney-at-law from March 1979. The relevant content of the contract entered into at the time is as follows.

[Purpose] Article 1 [Purpose] The Defendants delegate the handling of the above case to the Plaintiff on behalf of the mandators in the annexed list, and the Plaintiff accepts it. The Defendants may delegate or transfer the Defendants’ authority to the delegatings participating in the lawsuit at any time, and obtain the Plaintiff’s prior consent.

Article 4 [Mandatary's Duties] The Plaintiff, as an attorney-at-law, shall perform the delegated affairs in accordance with the terms and conditions of delegation, with due care of a good manager. The Plaintiff shall consult with the Defendants on major matters, and shall endeavor to perform the delegated affairs while accepting the Defendants' opinions.

Article 5 [Supplementary Remuneration] (1) The Defendants shall pay 100,000 won per participant in the lawsuit (excluding value-added tax) to the Plaintiff as the retainer fee, and the schedule of payment shall be separately agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

[Expenses] Article 8 [Bearing of Expenses] The defendants shall deposit KRW 500,000,00, as service charges, appraisal fees, prepayment fees, deposit, historical records, travel expenses, and other necessary actual expenses necessary for the plaintiff to handle the delegated affairs. The plaintiff shall use the expenses within the limit of KRW 500,000 for each delegating person. The defendants shall pay 5,000,000 for each delegating person to the plaintiff.

Article 13 [Guarantee of Payment] (1) The Defendants shall guarantee the payment of retainers fees.

C. After that, the Plaintiff received a list of 367 persons who will be the Plaintiff of the said lawsuit from Defendant 1 or Defendant 2, and on April 3, 2014, Defendant 1 requested the Plaintiff to reduce the retainer amount to KRW 20,000,000, and it was said that other attorneys-at-law than the Plaintiff should be appointed. The above Defendant sent the list of 350 persons who will be the Plaintiff of the said lawsuit, considering the possibility of withdrawal of the intention to participate in the lawsuit among the above list on the same day, and the Plaintiff accepted it.

D. Defendant 1 sent the following e-mail to the Plaintiff:

1) April 4, 2014 13:53

It is time to send the response e-mail on the following matters:

Defendant 1’s decision does not include “Contracting Party A” or “State Attorney” beginning in the first place.

350 persons' list shall be sent e-mail before April 12.

Those who are excluded from the defendant 1 and 350 persons may proceed with the state litigation through other attorneys-at-law, and they shall make every effort to prevent any side effects between them.

2) April 4, 2014 19:58

The proceedings of the State Litigation shall be suspended until the opinion on the major issues is settled.

3) April 4, 2014 23:06

I cannot pay the starting fee. Accordingly, the contract is automatically cancelled, and if there is an objection, it is known that there is an objection.

4) April 8, 2014

Part of the members of the Mutual-Aid Association who submitted state litigation documents to the Plaintiff request the return of documents. They send a list of the members who requested the return of documents between 10,000, and immediately return the documents.

E. On April 14, 2014, at around 15:00, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking State compensation due to Defendant 2’s abandonment of duties (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s lawsuit”) against the Republic of Korea on behalf of 367 persons, including the above 307 persons, including Defendant 2, the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap1979, Defendant 2, etc. (the two persons were filed under the name of 368 persons, but they were the same person as the same person) and attached a letter of delegation of the lawsuit under the above 367 persons, by stating that “the Defendant shall pay each of the plaintiffs KRW 1,00,000,000.”

F. On April 15, 2014, Defendant 1 sent the following note to the Plaintiff:

I have submitted a complaint of state action through Defendant 2. There was no matter in the complaint. What is the content in the complaint? And who is the list? The number of members who do not wish to bring a lawsuit between the plaintiff and the State is increasing, and these parts of the complaint will be withdrawn. It is essential to explain the act of submitting the complaint without obtaining prior approval.

G. Around that time, Defendant 1 had a question about the Plaintiff’s ability to perform the lawsuit and conducted an investigation on the preference against the Mutual-Aid Association members. After filing the lawsuit, Defendant 2, through Defendant 2, only approximately 20% of the members who want to participate in the State’s compensation claim lawsuit, selected the Plaintiff as the legal representative.

G. On April 22, 2014, Defendant 1 sent the Plaintiff a note containing the following details. The Defendants, on April 22, 2014, remitted KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff from Nonparty 2’s account.

(i) 07:24

Various crimes are transmitted. There are many deficiencies.

The State Litigation Contract was to comply with the intent of Defendant 2. Detailed matters shall be the time for consultation with the above Defendant.

2) 17:38

At this time, the author expressed his intention to deposit all the costs, and decided that Defendant 2 will deposit KRW 20,000,000 with the Plaintiff. The future case of the contract with the Plaintiff is entirely decided by the above Defendant. The author will deposit the balance with the approval of Defendant 2, and will send it over to the crime.

H. Of Plaintiff 367, Defendant 1 submitted a written withdrawal before submitting a written reply to the Seoul Central District Court on June 18, 2014, and July 7, 2014, and each Seoul Central District Court of Korea. After submitting a written response, a majority of 367 of the above 367 persons submitted a written withdrawal stating that “the Plaintiff submitted the written withdrawal without permission against the intent of the said Plaintiff and participated in the said lawsuit.” However, Korea consented to the withdrawal of the said written withdrawal.

(i) On July 16, 2014, Nonparty 4 law firm filed a lawsuit seeking damages against Nonparty 5 and one other than the Republic of Korea on behalf of Nonparty 5 and 516, against the Seoul Central District Court (2014Gahap37113).

(j) On July 2014, Defendant 1 posted on the Internet a notice containing the following contents:

Doing member under the part of the State Litigation ? ?

(No later than April 14, 2014, this public notice covers the National Assembly members who participated in the State proceeding. They do not constitute subsequent part)

- Members who appoint the plaintiff from among 368 members who participate in the plaintiff's lawsuit without permission, shall be 18, 323 persons for appointment of the non-party 4 law firm, and the remainder shall be non-assign. By the end of July, 196, the plaintiff shall be notified of the withdrawal of delegation to 323 persons and shall request the preservation and return of documents. 323 members shall not be paid additional expenses if the National Assembly delegates the lawsuit to the law firm as intended.

(k) On August 19, 2014, Defendant 1 sent the following mail to the Plaintiff.

Regarding the plaintiff's filing suit, 324 members attached thereto withdraw delegation to the plaintiff and withdraw the suit.

(l) Defendant 1 posted on Internet Blobs, an article containing the following contents for members of the Mutual-Aid Association:

1) On August 25, 2014

I sent the list of 324 to the full bench with content certification. I will actively respond to the plaintiff in the future. I will now send the "written withdrawal and certificate of personal seal to the plaintiff." The members who have withdrawn the lawsuit will assign the members to the legal team after the legal situation has been organized. On the other hand, I will allocate the list to the above law firm and assign it to the third legal team of the third. No additional cost will be incurred.

2) On September 26, 2014

A withdrawal and a certificate of personal seal impression, including the phrase that the complaint was submitted by the complaint, will be transferred to the plaintiff's institution trial division. Members who voluntarily withdrawn the suit will be assigned to the law firm or the third legal team without additional costs.

(m) On October 2, 2014, Nonparty 6 submitted to the Seoul Central District Court a written withdrawal of the lawsuit that “the above case was submitted without permission against the mandator’s will, and the lawsuit was commenced.”

(n) On April 10, 2015, Defendant 1 submitted to the Seoul Local Bar Association a petition for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff including the following matters, and the Seoul Local Bar Association rendered a decision to dismiss the said petition on July 20, 2015.

On April 4, 2014, the Defendant demanded that the Plaintiff submit a written withdrawal to the Plaintiff on the ground that the contract was cancelled (referring to cancellation) with the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff would continue to delegate the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff by the members of the Korean Faculty Mutual Aid Association. Most of the members selected another legal team, and notified the Plaintiff of this result. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff, despite the fact that he/she operated the name roster of the delegating, used the name tag, affixed it, and illegally submitted a written complaint. This is the forgery of the private document and the display of the private document. The Plaintiff submitted a written withdrawal to the full bench by attaching a certificate of personal seal impression to the Plaintiff. The full bench was ordering the Plaintiff to shipping the certificate of personal seal impression on October 30, 2014, but the Plaintiff did not submit a written withdrawal to the Plaintiff on the part of the delegating members. However, the Plaintiff was also unable to prove that it was forged and sealed by the date of the last five months.

C. On September 2, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the remainder of 307 claims on September 3, 2015 on the ground that the Plaintiff brought an action was brought without the Plaintiff’s power of attorney, after opening the six dates for pleading from September 2, 2014 to May 21, 2015.

【Ground for recognition】 without any dispute, A, 3-2, 3-4, 4, 6-1, 6-2, 7-2, 9-1 or 9-3, 11, 12, 15-2, 19-1, 20, 20, 2, 3, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 5, 7-1, 8, 18, 18, 18, and 1 part of the pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the claim for the agreed amount

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 36,800,000 (=368 x 100,000 x 100,000) less KRW 20,00,000, value-added tax on the retainer fee, KRW 3,680,000, stamp 1,840,000 (=368 x 5,000), deposit money for expenses 50,000, and damages for delay from April 15, 2014, which the Defendants paid to the Defendants for each of the above amounts.

(ii) the board;

According to the above facts, regardless of whether or not the plaintiff was delegated by the plaintiff with respect to the plaintiff's suit, the plaintiff was entrusted with the filing of the suit with 350 persons who are parties to the delegation contract with the plaintiff, and the defendants guaranteed the payment of the retainer fee to the plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendants are jointly obligated to pay the plaintiff the retainer fee of 35,00,000 won (=350 x 100,000) less 20,000 won from the retainer fee of 35,000 won, value-added tax of 3,50,000 won, and the defendants are each stamp of 583,333 won (=350 x 5,00 x 30 x 5,00 x 5,000 x 3), 16,666 won (=50,000 ±3) and damages for delay in the service of each of the above amounts.

B. Determination of the defendants' assertion

1) As Defendant 1 terminated the above delegation contract on April 4, 2014, Defendant 1 asserts that the above delegation contract between the Plaintiff and the above Defendant lost its validity. However, the above delegation contract is a delegated person of three defendants, and the above delegation contract must be terminated by all the Defendants pursuant to Article 547(1) of the Civil Act, so the above Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2) Although Defendant 3 asserted that it was merely lent the name at the time of the above delegation contract, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion by the above defendant, the above defendant's assertion is without merit.

3) Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 asserted that only Defendant 1 should be liable to the Plaintiff, since Defendant 1 maintained the litigation cost of 368 persons. However, as Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 guaranteed the payment of the retainer fee to the Plaintiff, the above Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

4) Defendant 1 asserts that the Plaintiff’s remuneration should be reduced to less than 20,000,000 won already paid in light of the principle of good faith and the principle of equity, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is only more than one party and the contents of the complaint are the same; and (b) the Plaintiff has not made efforts to conclude the above contract before the Plaintiff’s complaint was filed; and (c) the number of members of the Mutual-Aid Association who notified the Defendant that he would delegate the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff in the course of investigation was 60 persons; and (d) the Plaintiff’s remuneration should be reduced to less than 20,000,000 won already paid; and (e) contrary to the principle of good faith and the principle of equity, the court may determine ex officio without any allegations by the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Da74322, Oct. 10, 2003; 97Da37821, Aug. 21, 1998).

Unless there exist special circumstances, an attorney-at-law may claim the full amount of fees for the handling of delegated affairs agreed with the client. However, barring special circumstances, an attorney-at-law may claim only the amount of fees within the extent that exceptionally recognized is reasonable in light of the client’s relationship with the client, the circumstances leading up to the acceptance of the case, the progress and difficulty of the case, the degree of effort, the value of the subject matter of lawsuit, the specific benefits the client gained from winning the case, the rules on the fees of the affiliated attorney-at-law association, and other circumstances revealed in the pleading, where there are special circumstances to deem that the agreed fees unfairly excessive and thus contravenes the principle of good faith or the principle of equity (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da21249, Jul. 9,

On August 19, 2014, before the first date for pleading of the instant case, the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 were established in high school, and the Plaintiff was notified by Defendant 1 that 324 of the Plaintiffs of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit would withdraw the delegation of the lawsuit against the Plaintiff on August 19, 2014, and the Plaintiff was sentenced to a dismissal or dismissal judgment as seen above. According to the above facts acknowledged, according to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is KRW 367,00,000, and the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is KRW 367,000,00,000, and the overall purport of pleading was expressed in the evidence No. 19-1, the accepted case is recognized to coincide with the issues by the majority or the parties. Considering the above circumstances and the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ agreed retainer fee of KRW 35,00,000 as unfairly excessive and the value-added tax amount of value-added tax to be paid to the Plaintiff as KRW 200,000.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 749,99,00 (=583,33 + 166,666) (i.e., the following day following the service of the instant payment order), Defendant 1, Defendant 2 from May 23, 2014; Defendant 3 from May 27, 2014; and Defendant 3 from May 27, 2014, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendants to resist the scope of the obligation to perform the said contractual deposit; and from January 14, 2016, the date of the instant judgment where the Defendants’ dispute over the scope of the obligation to perform the said contractual deposit is determined to be 5% per annum under the Civil Act until January 14, 2016; and damages for delay by 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning

3. As to the claim for damages of KRW 30,000,000 against the Defendants

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Defendant 1’s embezzlement or breach of trust

Defendant 1 is liable for embezzlement or breach of trust, since Defendant 1, on behalf of 369 litigation participants, had a duty to faithfully perform the above terms and conditions of contract on behalf of 369 litigation participants, but did not pay to the Plaintiff the costs of lawsuit received from the litigant participants.

2) Defendant 1’s defamation

Defendant 1: (a) against the 392 participant in the lawsuit, the Plaintiff and 92.7% (364) of the above law firm selected among the above law firm were examined through Kafbook, and announced several times that they would favor the law firm and delegate the lawsuit to the above law firm; (b) on April 3, 2014, at the Plaintiff’s office, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 expressed the Plaintiff’s ability to deal with the case because the Plaintiff did not know about the alleged facts at the time of discussion of the complaint; and (c) on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s age and health problems may arise, the Plaintiff continued to perform the case. Although Defendant 1 filed a lawsuit pursuant to an agreement with the Defendants, the Plaintiff did not err by the Plaintiff’s failure to file a lawsuit without permission, the Plaintiff’s act of protruding prior to receiving a lawsuit, and the Plaintiff’s submission of the Plaintiff’s statement of capacity to withdraw the lawsuit to the Plaintiff’s employees and the Plaintiff’s attorney at the latest stage of litigation by pointing out his capacity to the Plaintiff’s 1’s Kafol.

3) Joint tort committed by Defendants 2 and 3

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, as a party to the above delegation contract with the Plaintiff, did not perform the obligation to prevent such embezzlement, breach of trust, and defamation as seen above by Defendant 1, even though they were obligated to do so. Therefore, the Defendants jointly pay KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

(b) Markets:

1) The evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 1 engaged in embezzlement or breach of trust as alleged by the Plaintiff.

2) It is difficult to view that Defendant 1’s failure to conduct an investigation against the aforementioned state litigation participants on the preference that they choose among the Plaintiff and the said law firm, and most of them publicly notified that they favor the said law firm, or allowing the Plaintiffs of the said case to submit a written withdrawal of the lawsuit in relation to the said lawsuit, was an unlawful infringement on the Plaintiff’s honor. Other facts alleged by the Plaintiff are insufficient to recognize it only by the evidence submitted by the

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

4. As to the claim for damages of KRW 20,000,000 against Defendant 1

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in accordance with the above delegation contract with the Defendants, Defendant 1 submitted to the court a written withdrawal of the lawsuit, clearly stating that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit without permission, and that the Plaintiff’s preparation by the Seoul Bar Association constitutes a private document offense, and upon filing an application for disciplinary action with the Seoul Bar Association, the Plaintiffs of the case and the competent division, etc. were to mislead the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff submitted the complaint without permission, thereby impairing the honor of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s attorney-at-law. Thus, the Plaintiff should pay consolation money of KRW 20,00,000.

(b) Markets:

According to the above facts, the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit was delegated by the defendants to 350 members of the plaintiff, and the defendant 1 unilaterally requested to suspend the lawsuit against the other defendants' will without notifying 350 members of the list, and 367 members of the 367 members of the plaintiff cannot be identified, and the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit is limited to the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit with 367 members of the 367 members of the plaintiff as the plaintiff. The defendant 1 also recommended that the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit would follow the defendant 2's intent as to the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit, and it is reasonable that the above defendant submitted the plaintiff's complaint without permission around July 2014, the plaintiff's submission of the plaintiff's complaint to 200 members of the 350 members of the 350 members of the 350 members of the 367 members of the 367 members of the 367 members of the 3507 members of the 20 division of the Seoul Bar Association, which submitted the above complaint to the plaintiff's 20 10 members of the plaintiff.

Therefore, Defendant 1 is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of KRW 5,00,000 and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from May 1, 2015 to January 14, 2016, which is the day following the delivery of the written application for change of claim and cause of claim as of April 24, 2015, the following day of the application for change of claim and cause of claim as of April 24, 2015.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants of this case are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is without merit.

Judges Park Jong-young