Where the amount of remuneration is not determined in the delegation of a lawsuit against a lawyer, the criteria for determining the amount of remuneration.

Unless the amount of remuneration is determined in the delegation of a lawsuit against an attorney-at-law, the amount of remuneration shall be determined by examining the difficulties in the litigation case, the litigation price and the overall situation in which the parties concerned have provided efforts with respect to the case, and by estimating the intention of the parties.

Article 686 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 70Da1069 decided Aug. 31, 1970 (Non-resident-I Article 763(1)(20) of the Civil Act, 1317 pages, 18 ②B civil 275)

Plaintiff

Defendant Incorporated Foundation

This case is dismissed.

Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be effected only under paragraph (1) of the original judgment.

The defendant shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the first and second instances, and the plaintiff shall be dismissed.

The method of actual statement and evidence of both parties to the judgment of the court below is "20,000,000,000 dollars" in the third part of the third part of the judgment of the court below. The defendant corrected the part of "6 million," in the same judgment to "7,000,000,000,000,000" and denied the defendant's assertion, and the defendant delegated the plaintiff to the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the case to the plaintiff as a whole, and the defendant agreed to pay the honorarium after the judgment of the court of the court of the first instance became final and conclusive and the civil and criminal cases of the defendant in the whole case are not wholly resolved, so it is impossible to respond to the plaintiff's claim, and the defendant's delegation case of the attorney to the non-party 3 is identical to the plaintiff, but the non-party 3 is identical to the case of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court below as to the plaintiff.

The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff, a lawyer, filed an administrative suit with the Seoul High Court for delivery of 50,00 won (Seoul High Court No. 176, a short-term 428) by delegation of the defendant, and won the defendant in this case, is without dispute between the parties, and the non-party 6's testimony and pleading can be acknowledged as not having agreed with the non-party 6,7,8, and the testimony of the non-party 9 is not new with the original court for delivery of 50,00 won, and there is no evidence to reverse the recognition of the non-party 1's assertion that the non-party 6,7,8, and 9's testimony of the non-party 6,00 won in this case should be applied to the non-party 1's statement of 9,000 won in the first instance court for the defendant's lawsuit and the non-party 2's assertion that the non-party 1's testimony and testimony of the non-party 1's opinion in this case can be established.

Judges Hong Il-won (Presiding Judge) Kim Hwang-soon