Main Issues
Cases deemed to constitute a case of arranging a proxy for a litigation case;
Summary of Judgment
Unlike the case where a lawyer performs his normal duties and receives remuneration changed depending on the difference in the revenue of his office, it is against Article 48 of the Attorney-at-Law Act when he mediates the case of a customer who has found himself to act for the lawyer and receives a part of the retainer.
[Reference Provisions]
Articles 53 and 48 of the Attorney-at-Law Act
Defendant-Appellant
Defendant
Defense Counsel
Attorney Yellow Jae-sung
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 81No2922 delivered on August 21, 1981
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the facts duly confirmed by the court below, the defendant agreed to receive 30% of the retainers of the litigation case he/she arranged in addition to the fixed monthly wage of 200,000 won between the defendant's electrical source of the court of first instance, who is the actual operator of the attorney-at-law's office, as well as the fixed monthly wage of 200,000 won, and he/she arranged the above attorney-at-law to act for the above attorney-at-law and received part of the retainers. The defendant's so-called "the attorney-at-law" is different from the case where the attorney-at-law performs his/her normal duties and receives or promises to receive the changed remuneration depending on the difference in the office's revenue, and it cannot be said that such act does not go beyond the social rules.
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it is not acceptable to criticize the judgment of the court below in the opposite opinion. Moreover, the part of the lawsuit on the premise that the money received by the defendant is not the price for the conciliation of the case, but the cost necessary for performing affairs, is not the cost for the conciliation of the case, and the judgment of the court below is not accepted, and it
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young