1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall make the plaintiff 6,600.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff was investigated by the prosecution on three hospitals, including “C Council members”, “D hospital”, and “E Council members,” established in the name of the Plaintiff, for suspicion of violation of the Medical Service Act, etc.

B. On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a delegation agreement with the Defendant, a representative attorney of the F Law Office, to delegate the duties of handling the said criminal case at the time of investigation to KRW 33 million (including value-added tax) and KRW 50 million in contingent fees when a sentence of a fine not exceeding the amount of a fine (However, as a special agreement, to pay KRW 20 million in addition to contingent fees in the event that the investigation is not expanded due to the instant case outside of the operation of the D Hospital and the investigation is completed).

C. The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 20 million on October 22, 2014, and KRW 33 million on October 24, 2014, including KRW 13 million on the same month.

On October 30, 2014, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to terminate the delegation contract, but the Plaintiff subsequently concluded a delegation contract with the intent to withhold it from the Defendant’s maturity and to manage the delegated affairs concerning the handling of the case at the prosecution investigation stage by excluding the contingent fee agreement.

(However, as a special agreement, the part except D Hospital is paid with 10 million won of success fee when there is no legal problem). E.

On October 31, 2014, the Plaintiff was prosecuted for violating the Medical Service Act in relation to the establishment of “C Council members” and “D hospital”.

F. On November 13, 2014, the Plaintiff again demanded the Defendant to terminate the delegation contract. Accordingly, the Defendant submitted a defense counsel resignation system to the court on November 19, 2014, and returned KRW 16.5 million out of the retainer payment received to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 6-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The defendant's gist of the plaintiff's assertion is a mandatory who is a delegated contract.