1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants ordering payment in excess of the following amount.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of this court is that "A creditor who is an attorney-at-law" in the 5th 8th th of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as "A, who is an attorney-at-law," "B" in the 13th th th 14, "A" is also dismissed as "B at will", "A" in the 14th 17th th th th th "each creditor" is dismissed as "each defendant," "the creditor" in the 6th 2th th th th th th th th th th th "the plaintiff is admitted as "the complaint," and "the 6th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th, "the same party" and "the 17th th th th th th th th th th" is cited as it.

2. The part to be used for the trial (the sixth one to fourteen parts of the judgment of the court of first instance)

G. After the above agreement, Defendant B expressed his intent to withdraw the lawsuit on behalf of the Defendants on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with the request of the Defendants for the submission of a written withdrawal of the lawsuit on the grounds of unpaid performance fees. The Defendants submitted the written withdrawal of the lawsuit directly without going through the Plaintiff on November 25, 2016, and U submitted the written withdrawal of the lawsuit on December 1, 2016. The representative ordinary wage lawsuit of this case was terminated by submitting the written consent of withdrawal of the lawsuit on December 1, 2016.

H. On November 21, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) requested that the Defendants individually send a certificate of content to each of the Defendants to the effect that “the performance bonus under the instant delegation agreement would be paid by November 30, 2017; (b) however, the Defendants did not comply with the request.”

【Court of First Instance 17 et al.】

A. At the time of the conclusion of the delegation contract of this case as to whether the obligation to pay contingent remuneration arises, the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to pay contingent remuneration on the premise that the Defendants voluntarily withdrawn the lawsuit after having invested considerable efforts for the management of delegated affairs.