1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts as follows as the cause of the instant claim. A.

On January 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a delegation contract with the Defendant for criminal cases, including embezzlement of the following content:

1) Terms and conditions of a successful agreement of KRW 60,000,000 for the retainer fee, KRW 70,000 for the contingent fee, KRW 20,000 for the additional contingent fee, and KRW 20,000 for the contingent fee: Non-prosecution disposition (not guilty)

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 60,00,000 to the Defendant on January 1, 2006 according to the delegation agreement, and around February 16, 2006, upon the Defendant’s request for the advance payment of the contingent remuneration, the Plaintiff paid KRW 70,000,000 to the Defendant on February 23, 2006.

C. However, on March 31, 2006, the Plaintiff was charged with undetained confinement due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the Seoul Central District Court 2006Kahap278, and the above court was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and was sentenced to imprisonment for two years at the appellate court.

As above, the defendant was paid 90,000,000 won for contingent fees on the condition of success in the disposition of non-prosecution as above, but the plaintiff was indicted and sentenced to a sentence as above, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the above 90,000,000 won and damages for delay.

E. The Defendant, without submitting his attorney appointment guidance, submitted to the prosecution the attorney appointment system in the name of another attorney, submitted the attorney’s opinion once, submitted another attorney’s opinion after prosecution, and performed delegated affairs in an unfaithful manner by having the attorney appointment system present at the trial date one time, etc. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 which the Defendant received excessively from the Plaintiff out of KRW 60,000,000 received by the Defendant, and delay compensation therefor.

2. In full view of the judgment as to the cause of the claim No. 2, Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff on March 31, 2006, the Seoul Central District Court 2006Gohap278.