Remuneration arrangements for acts violating the Act on the Control of Legal Affairs are invalid under private law.

Remuneration arrangements for acts in violation of the Act on the Control of Administrative Affairs and Regulations are invalid under private law.

Article 5 of the Control of Administrative Affairs Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na28 delivered on March 27, 1969, Seoul High Court Decision 68Na28 delivered on March 27, 1969

The original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant-appellant's second ground of appeal is examined.

In light of the legislative intent of Articles 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the Regulation of Administrative Affairs Act (in particular, Article 5), the same Act only regulates violations of the same Act and denies the judicial effect of the fee agreement for the violation. However, the original judgment was concluded on April 1961 that Defendant 1 agreed to donate 3,500 square meters among the real estate in its holding during the period of 1961 when he did not take the procedure that he would be in the future against the plaintiff, and it was concluded as the purport of remuneration for the act in violation of the above Regulation of Administrative Affairs. Thus, as to the defendants' defense that the agreement was invalid against the mandatory law, the agreement was the purport of setting the remuneration for the violation of the above Regulation of Administrative Affairs, as argued by the defendants, even if the agreement was made as the purport of the agreement, the act of remuneration for the violation of the above Regulation of Administrative Affairs, which is the object of punishment, and thus, it cannot be rejected by the misapprehension of the legal principle of the Civil Procedure Act, which is inconsistent with the judgment of the court below.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Na-dong, Ma-dong, and Ma-won Park Jae-won