1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 22, 2016, the Plaintiff, as an attorney-at-law belonging to the Bar Association, was subject to a disciplinary decision of KRW 2 million for the following grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

Any attorney-at-law shall not perform an act impairing his dignity and shall pass through a local bar association to which he belongs when he submits a letter of appointment of a counsel, power of attorney, etc. with respect to legal cases or legal affairs to a public

However, the complainant means the plaintiff of the suspect.

The same applies to the same. Around August 2014, even though a lawsuit was delegated to the Changwon District Court E case (hereinafter “First case”) by D and the pleadings were concluded during the process, it was received KRW 1,500,000 from D with the intention to resume the pleadings of another case, the pleadings of which have been concluded (limited to only the parties, and which are the same issues, F of the Changwon District Court F of the same case; hereinafter “Second case”).

Accordingly, the suspect received the application for the resumption of argument in the name of the delegated head of the lawsuit and the suspected person without going through the local bar association of the affiliated local bar association with respect to the second case, but the judgment was sentenced as it was, and rejected the request for the refund of the D fee.

Therefore, the suspect violated the Attorney-at-Law Act by receiving an application for resumption of argument in the name of the delegating authority and the suspected person without going through the local bar association under its jurisdiction, and even though he accepted the second case on the ground that he would resume the pleading of the case on which the pleading has been concluded, he did not continue the pleading and did not proceed with any particular duties, he did the act of impairing the dignity of the lawyer by refusing a request for the return of fees.

B. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant seeking the revocation of the instant disciplinary action, but the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s objection on January 22, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 5.