beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.
Reasons
1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or recognize the whole purport of the arguments in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 2, 4-1, 2, 5-9, 20-1, 20-3, and 3.
On October 11, 2005, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with a sale price of KRW 412,50,000 for the purchase price of KRW 1,818 square meters in Gyeonggi-do D Forest in order to build an apartment.
B. On May 21, 2007, in order to file a lawsuit against C, such as transfer of ownership based on the above sale and purchase, the Defendant entered into a contract for delegation of the lawsuit with Roman Law Firm with the Plaintiff’s introduction. Accordingly, on June 7, 2007, the Suwon District Court rendered a judgment against C on October 16, 2008 by filing a lawsuit against C on behalf of the Defendant for a claim such as transfer of ownership of the above land (2007da753). The Defendant was dismissed on August 12, 2009 from the appellate court (Seoul District Court 2008Na26497) but the appellate court (Supreme Court 2009Da69142) rendered a judgment on September 30, 2010.
After that, on June 24, 2011, the Defendant received a partial favorable judgment in the reversed and remanded judgment (U.S. District Court 2010Na28823) and filed a final appeal by C, but the final appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court Decision 201Da62069 Decided September 29, 2011.
C. Meanwhile, with respect to the above appellate case (U.S. District Court 2008Na26497), the Defendant and Roman entered into a contract for the delegation of a lawsuit with the amount of KRW 7,700,000,000 for the said appellate case. On December 8, 2008, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,700,000 for the retainer to the Law Firm Roman.
In addition, the plaintiff paid 21,380 won on June 5, 2007, 2000 won on October 6, 2008, 26,160 won on the recognition of the lawsuit in the appellate trial and the delivery fee to the law firm for the first instance trial, respectively.
2. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's defense prior to the merits shall be subject to the Trial of Small Claims Act by the plaintiff.