1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

From March 2014 to June 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant, a licensed administrative agent, to prepare documents of lawsuit concerning the case of the Seoul Central District Court 2014Da211211, etc., and the Defendant prepared approximately 40 litigation documents, including preparatory documents, and the fact that the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 2,300,000 to the Defendant is no dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff asserts to the following purport:

Since the defendant is not an attorney-at-law and has no authority to prepare litigation documents in return for payment, and as well as to obtain sufficient legal knowledge, deceiving the plaintiff that he could win even if he did not have sufficient legal knowledge, or preparing litigation documents different from those delegated by the plaintiff to lose all of the plaintiff in the related litigation, the defendant is liable to pay 2.3 million won as compensation for such damages to the plaintiff.

However, as alleged by the plaintiff, the defendant deceivings the plaintiff.

Unlike the intent of delegation, there is no sufficient evidence to recognize that the plaintiff has lost in a related lawsuit due to the breach of duty of due care as a good manager, such as preparing litigation documents in an unfaithful manner.

In light of the fact that the defendant prepared litigation documents and received approximately KRW 50,000 for each case of compensating for actual expenses, it is difficult to see that there was actual expenses up to KRW 50,000 per case of preparation of litigation documents, and that such acts have been conducted for a long time and repeated business, it may be viewed that the defendant's act obtained economic benefits in return for handling legal affairs, ice for compensating for actual expenses, and that it is a violation of Article 109 subparagraph 1

However, the Plaintiff did not assert that the money that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act constitutes illegal consideration and that the Defendant’s illegality is much higher than that of the Plaintiff, and thus, it does not claim the return thereof.