1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts (no dispute exists);

A. On September 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the administrative agent C for a charge of violating the Attorney-at-Law Act. The gist of the complaint is that “C, even if it is not an attorney-at-law, receives a fixed amount of 200,000 won per month from the Plaintiff and takes legal counseling and preparation of legal documents related to various civil and criminal litigations, etc., and prepares five legal documents related to the relevant civil and criminal litigations from October 201 to November 2013 (a written statement of order to submit written documents, written application for submission of written documents, written complaint, written complaint, and written statement of reference argument).”

C The above five legal documents, including preparatory documents, were prepared and presented to the Plaintiff, and the office received 4,321,000 won in total from the original High Court from January 2, 2009 to December 3, 2015, shall be recognized.

C Documents prepared for the plaintiff are documents submitted to administrative agencies, such as information disclosure statement, X-RAY analysis statement, tax evasion report, etc., which fall within the scope of the administrative agency's business, and which exceed the scope of the administrative agency's business, such as documents for appeal and preparation.

However, it appears that the quantity and quantity of administrative documents written by C are not so specified.

C. Furthermore, given that the price for preparing a document by an administrative agent exceeds at least 5,000 won, and additional expenses are incurred to cans the relevant documents to prepare administrative documents and litigation documents, it is difficult to readily conclude that the amount received by the Plaintiff falls under the price for legal affairs in excess of the level of cost for preparing the document and for preparing litigation documents within the scope of the administrative agent’s business.

The plaintiff's assertion that "only he paid money to C in return for the handling of legal affairs, such as legal counseling and the preparation of litigation-related documents, and there was no money in return for the preparation of other documents" is insufficient to reverse the plaintiff's vindication without related data, such as the contract to support the plaintiff's assertion, and the money received from C otherwise.