Any person who delegates the handling of the case to an attorney-at-law for the purpose of application for cancellation of an unfair provisional disposition may claim for remuneration to the extent equivalent to the case paid by him.

Any person who delegates the handling of the case to an attorney-at-law for the purpose of application for cancellation of an unfair provisional disposition may claim for remuneration to the extent equivalent to the case paid by him.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Seoul High Court Decision 4292No300 delivered on June 23, 1960

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 68Na220 delivered on October 15, 1969

The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant, while the costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff.

First, the Defendant’s ground of appeal is health.

In order to file an application for cancellation of a provisional disposition, a person who has delegated the handling of the case to an attorney-at-law may claim as damages to the attorney-at-law, and the amount shall not be the standard amount actually paid, but shall be determined on the basis of the amount equivalent to the amount of the case (see Supreme Court Decision 4292Da690 delivered on June 23, 1960). Thus, the court below acknowledged the fact that the court below delegated the case to an attorney-at-law Kim Do-won and caused the plaintiff to file an application for the order of filing a lawsuit and caused the plaintiff to respond to the lawsuit on the merits and found that the final judgment against the defendant was final and conclusive, and the defendant has a duty to compensate for the fees paid to the above attorney-at-law as damages, and even if the defendant knew such fact, the court below did not err by violating the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles.

The following grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff are examined as follows:

Review of records reveals that the decision of provisional disposition was made in this case, such as Won, and there was no damage to the plaintiff. However, since the plaintiff could have been found to have been negligent by expanding the case by itself, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on liability for negligence in the situation where the court below considered these negligence.

Therefore, all of the defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng