(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.20 2014가단206943

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 2015.08.20 2014가단206943

피해금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted with the Defendant that he would receive a certain percentage of winning prizes from the Defendant in the course of a lawsuit on the land where the Defendant’s advance payment was assessed during the Japanese occupation period. From around 2008, the Plaintiff used at least one billion won as the cost.

However, from May 2014, the Defendant failed to file a lawsuit due to not giving the power of attorney or other documents, and thereby caused damage equivalent to KRW 800 million. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 49,000,000, which the Plaintiff seeks as part of the said money.

B. According to the evidence evidence No. 1, around March 23, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant charged the Plaintiff with the lawsuit concerning the land for which the Defendant’s shipbuilding C was under the circumstances (hereinafter “the lawsuit seeking land”), and if winning the lawsuit, the Plaintiff would compensate the Defendant for 20%, and the Plaintiff would be responsible for the legal and monetary issues arising in the course of the lawsuit (hereinafter “instant agreement”). However, the evidence No. 1 submitted alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff spent the expenses of KRW 1 billion while proceeding the lawsuit seeking the land against the Defendant, and that the Defendant lost the lawsuit due to the Defendant’s failure to give notice of the documents, such as the power of attorney, and there is no other evidence to support this.

In addition, the instant agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant constitutes a case where the Plaintiff, other than an attorney-at-law, has agreed to act on behalf of a litigation case, etc. which cannot be said to be an attorney-at-

Therefore, it would be null and void in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which is a mandatory law.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's assertion as it is without merit.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, since the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

참조조문

-변호사법

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.25 2014가단177618

-춘천지법 2007. 6. 22. 선고 2006가합319 판결

-인천지방법원 2018.01.18 2017고단7226

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.10.26 2014고단3165

-의정부지방법원 2014.10.23 2014고정1390