Where an employee of an attorney-at-law office falsely notifies the client of the period for filing an appeal, thereby preventing an appeal, the case recognizing the attorney-at-law's liability for damages

The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the attorney-at-law entrusted with a litigation case shall be liable for the damages suffered by the client, in case where the attorney-at-law has lost an opportunity for appeal due to the lapse of the period for filing an appeal because he/she issues a written judgment to the client through the attorney-at-law office staff who is not familiar with the litigation affairs and confirms whether to file an appeal, because the attorney-at-law has become unable to faithfully handle the litigation affairs and has the attorney-at-law delegated with the litigation affairs until the Supreme Court, and has the attorney-at-law lose an opportunity for filing an appeal, even after the lawsuit is terminated, because he/she has a duty of care to pay careful attention so that he/she does not lose

Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Park Sung-hee (Attorney Kim Won-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Hembs (Law Firm Dong-dong Law Office, Attorney Lee Jin-woo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na35721 delivered on December 6, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

A. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, it is clear that the assertion is dismissed due to the lack of reason. However, the judgment of the court below on the additional tax on negligent tax returns is included in the judgment of the court below. Thus, there is no violation of law of omission of judgment, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. On the second ground for appeal

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below as to the imposition of additional tax on negligent tax returns and its amount is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law, such as inconsistent reasoning or incomplete hearing, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

C. On the third ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below's decision that recognized the consolation money of KRW 15,00,00 as consolation money in consideration of all the circumstances as stated in its holding is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the judgment on the basis of the assessment of consolation money and finding the amount unfairly less than it, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

The argument that the agreement of this case (Evidence A No. 2) was made illegally and its effect against the defendant is not acceptable, inasmuch as the defendant recognized the establishment of the petition and carried out the litigation accordingly.

In addition, the court below, after compiling the adopted evidence, found facts as stated in its decision. The defendant, as an attorney-at-law and attorney-at-law in the above litigation case, delegated with the judgment, has faithfully handled the above litigation affairs, and since the delegation of this case is not only the Supreme Court but also the delegation of this case, even after the completion of the lawsuit, the court below held that the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the plaintiff, since the defendant has the duty of care to pay close attention so that the plaintiff should not lose an opportunity to receive a higher judgment without his own will, despite the absence of a duty of care to pay close attention to the plaintiff, by issuing a judgment to the plaintiff and confirming whether to appeal through the non-party Kim la, who is not familiar with his own will, thereby getting the plaintiff to be informed of the wrong period of filing an appeal. In light of the records, the court below's measures are justified, and there is no violation of law as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

In conclusion, the assertion is not acceptable as it is a tree where the judgment of the court below on the preparation of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below is contested or it is different from that of the court below.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)