[1] The amount of fees that an attorney may request for the delegated affairs of a lawsuit

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to view that the contingent fees stipulated in the contract of delegation of a lawsuit cannot be exempted from reduction because they are unfairly excessive compared to the seriousness of the accepted case

[1] Articles 2 and 686 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 2 and 686 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da30382 delivered on February 9, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 940) Supreme Court Decision 94Da57626 delivered on April 25, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1945) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da50190 Delivered on April 12, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1085)

Law Firm Barun

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na54213 decided February 18, 2009

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In principle, in cases where there is an agreement with the client on the remuneration for the handling of delegated affairs of an attorney-at-law, an attorney-law who completed the delegated affairs may claim the agreed amount of remuneration, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance. However, in cases where there are special circumstances to deem that the agreed amount of remuneration unfairly excessive and excessive and contrary to the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of equity is unreasonable, the attorney-at-law who completed the delegated affairs may claim only the amount of remuneration within the reasonable scope (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da57626, Apr. 25, 1995; 200Da50190, Apr. 12, 2002).

Since it has the legal nature of delegation contract to receive fees for the handling of delegated affairs by an attorney-at-law is in principle determined by the free agreement between the attorney-at-law who is the mandatary and the client who is the mandator. However, an attorney-at-law is in the position of public legal professional with the mission to protect fundamental human rights and realize social justice and faithfully perform his/her duties in accordance with his/her mission and endeavor to maintain social order and improve the legal system (Article 1, Article 2 of the Attorney-at-law Act). Thus, the attorney-at-law cannot be left unattended in the area of private autonomy without restrictions on remuneration for the performance of his/her duties, and it is reasonable to reasonably coordinate and regulate the fees in the public interest level. Considering the nature of attorney-at-law’s fees and the characteristics of attorney’s duties in a balanced manner, the attorney-at-law’s fees are significantly contrary to social rules compared to his/her duties and efforts, or are not able to assume responsibility for the attorney-at-law with the conclusion and delegation of delegation contract.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in applying the above legal principles to this case, the court below determined that, in light of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments, including the following: (a) the amount of contingent fees paid by the plaintiff from the defendant as a contract for delegation of a lawsuit in this case exceeds 49.5 million won in total; (b) the amount of contingent fees exceeds 165 million won in total; (c) the criminal case in this case is two cases, but the criminal case in this case is joined, and thus, the progress and difficulty of the handling of the case; (d) the degree of efforts of the plaintiff; (e) the specific profits the defendant obtained by receiving a judgment of innocence; and (e) the legal expenses paid by the defendant, etc., the contingent fees agreement stipulated in each contract for delegation of a lawsuit in this case is deemed to unfairly excessive, and thus, it is reasonable to determine the contingent fees paid by the

However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

First, the lower court’s ratio of remuneration in the name of the retainer and the amount of contingent fees, among the matters stated on the basis of its determination, cannot be deemed to have reached the extent of discussing the illegality only with the degree recognized by the lower court, based on the characteristics of delegated affairs, and the fact that the criminal cases for which a separate contract for attorney-at-law was concluded are combined may serve as materials to estimate the degree of efforts that the Plaintiff is able to understand the degree of his/her efforts. However, in light of the circumstances where the facts charged in the two cases are different, and the assertion and proof are separate, it cannot be deemed that the remuneration agreement concluded separately in the first place was unfairly altered

다음으로, 원심판결 이유와 원심이 배척하지 아니한 증거들에 의하면, 피고는 2006. 12. 29. 서울중앙지방법원 2007고합6호 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률위반(사기)죄로 불구속 기소되었는데 그 공소사실의 요지는, “피고인은 소외 1 주식회사를 경영하는 자인바, 피고인은 소외 1 주식회사가 소유한 원주시 문막읍 비두리 산 (이하 지번 1 생략)필지(이하 ‘이 사건 부동산’이라 한다)를 2002. 12. 3. 주식회사 소외 2에게 매매대금 58억에 매도하고 주식회사 소외 2에게 소유권이전등기를 경료하면서 미지급 잔대금 38억에 대하여 이 사건 부동산에 근저당권을 설정받은 후 주식회사 소외 2와의 사이에 매매계약의 이행과 관련하여 법적 분쟁이 발생하였고, 주식회사 소외 2와의 매매계약상의 지위를 2004. 11. 25. 소외 3 주식회사에게 38억에 양도함으로써 이 사건 부동산의 소유권을 정상적으로 취득하여 매도할 수 있는 의사나 능력이 없음에도, 2006. 5. 2. 이 사건 부동산을 다시 주식회사 소외 4에게 매매대금 116억 6,000만 원에 매도하고 계약금으로 합계 30억 원을 교부받아 이를 편취하였다”는 내용인 사실, 피고는 또 2006. 12. 23. 서울중앙지방법원 2006고단7268호 무고죄로 불구속 기소되었는데 그 공소사실의 요지는, “ 소외 1 주식회사가 이 사건 부동산을 주식회사 소외 2에게 매도함에 있어, 주식회사 소외 2가 소외 1 주식회사에 대하여 잔금을 지급하지 못하는 상황이 되면 잔금 지급일 이후부터 월 0.3%의 지연이자를 피고인에게 지급하고 주식회사 소외 2가 위 지연이자를 3회 이상 연체할 경우에 한하여 매도인은 잔금지급을 청구할 수 있고 임의경매절차를 개시할 수 있다고 약정하였음에도 불구하고 주식회사 소외 2의 실제 경영자인 소외 5로 하여금 형사처벌을 받게 할 목적으로 소외 5가 권한 없이 위 지연이자 및 임의경매에 관한 사항을 임의로 기재하여 사문서인 피고인 명의의 근저당권설정계약서를 위조하였으므로 이를 처벌하여 달라면서 소외 5를 무고하였다”는 내용인 사실, 원고는 피고로부터 위 형사사건의 변론을 요청받고 원고 소속 변호사 소외 6은 2007. 1. 12. 피고와 위 두 건에 대하여 별도로 소송위임계약서를 작성하였는데, 위 2007고합6호 사건에 대하여 착수금 3,300만 원, 성공보수 무죄선고시 1억 1,000만 원, 집행유예선고시 1,650만 원, 성공보수의 지급시기는 제1심판결 선고 후 3일 이내로 약정하고, 위 2006고단7268 사건에 대하여 착수금 1,650만 원, 성공보수 무죄선고시 5,500만 원, 집행유예선고시 825만 원, 성공보수의 지급시기는 제1심판결 선고 후 3일 이내로 약정한 사실, 피고는 2007. 1. 15. 소외 6 변호사를 통해 원고에게 착수금으로 4,950만 원을 지급한 사실, 위 2006고단7268호 사건은 서울중앙지방법원 2007고합80호 로 재배당되어 2007. 1. 29. 위 2007고합6호 사건에 병합된 사실, 원고 소속 담당변호사인 소외 6, 소외 7은 위 형사사건의 공소장이 접수된 2006. 12. 29.경부터 1심 판결이 선고된 2007. 9. 14.까지 총 12회의 공판기일이 진행되는 동안 10명의 증인에 대한 신문을 하였고, 55면에 이르는 변론요지서와 각종 변론자료를 담당 재판부에 제출하는 등 변론에 임한 사실, 위 두 사건이 모두 이 사건 부동산의 거래로 인하여 발생한 사건이기는 하지만 거래 당사자 및 관련자들이 다르고 공소사실도 상이하여 주장 및 입증은 별개로 진행된 사실, 피고는 2007. 9. 14. 위 형사사건에 대해 모두 무죄판결을 선고받은 사실, 검사가 이에 불복하여 항소하였는데, 피고는 변호인을 선임하지 않아 재판부에서 국선변호인을 선임하여 공판을 진행하였으며 2008. 5. 29. 항소기각되어 그 무렵 확정된 사실, 한편 피고는 위 형사사건으로 공소제기되기 전에도 이 사건 부동산 거래와 관련하여 각종 민·형사적인 분쟁이 발생하였는데 그 분쟁을 해결하기 위하여 수 회에 걸쳐 다수의 변호사를 선임하였고, 위 각 형사사건이 기소되기 전 수사단계에서도 변호사를 선임하였던 사실을 알 수 있다.

In general, civil cases are the main criteria for calculating remuneration, and in criminal cases, the calculation of economic benefits based on the result of a lawsuit is not limited, while the calculation of the economic benefits based on the result of the lawsuit is not significant criteria. As pointed out by the court below, criminal cases accepted by the plaintiff, as pointed out by the nature of the case, may lead to a serious result in the client's personal body when the judgment of conviction is rendered, and the result of the civil cases that will be progress in the future may have a serious impact on the client's personal body. The economic benefits of the civil cases concerned can be viewed as the real estate value or the amount of fraud. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that the amount of the fee agreement of this case unfairly excessive reduction is difficult to be exempt from reduction compared to the seriousness of the case's case's case's case's case's case's case's delegation to the plaintiff. There is no other evidence to see that the attorney-at-law belonging to the plaintiff has involved in the above delegated affairs other than the evaluation of the ability to perform delegated affairs of the plaintiff, and there is no best evidence for the execution of this case's agreement.

Therefore, even though the above legal reasoning is not recognized in the instant fee agreement and the delegated affairs thereof, the court below has reached the above conclusion on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the fee agreement and failing to exhaust all deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)