1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion is a person who was detained in the court of first instance in the Seoul Eastern District Court 2013Kadan567, 782 (Joint), and was appointed as a defense counsel, and the defendant is a lawyer.

Upon the Plaintiff’s detention in the instant case, the Defendant issued a judgment of innocence at the appellate court upon the Plaintiff’s appointment of B as a lawyer. It stated to the effect that “The Plaintiff would request the Defendant to pay KRW 50,000,000 to the attorney’s fees.” The Plaintiff believed to have appointed the Defendant as a defense counsel at the appellate court.

However, after the defendant was appointed as a defense counsel, the defendant demanded an excessive demand for payment of KRW 300 million, and the plaintiff dismissed the defendant.

50,000,000 won, which the Plaintiff believed to be “the Defendant would have received a judgment of innocence,” was equivalent to the contingent fee in criminal cases. Since the Plaintiff dismissed the Defendant from the defense counsel, and the contract for the appointment of a defense counsel between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated, and the Defendant did not receive the Defendant’s acquittal by acting as the defense counsel, the Defendant is obligated to return the contingent fee of KRW 50,000,000 paid by the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

(1) The Plaintiff’s appointment contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with a full amount of KRW 50,000,000 on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff’s appointment contract was concluded on February 2, 200; and (b) there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on this premise is without merit to examine further.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.