[1] Requirements for a lawyer to reduce the agreed amount of remuneration for delegated affairs in a case-by-law, and the extent of presentation of such grounds

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the attorney's contingent fees are unreasonably excessive and thus are contrary to the principle of good faith and equity, and thus, the grounds for reduction are extremely weak

[1] Articles 2 and 686 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 2 and 686 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Roon, Attorneys Lee Na-in, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Na37369 Decided May 8, 2009

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of final appeal, where an agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 regarding the fee of Nonparty 2’s attorney-at-law for the entrusted affairs of the instant case, the lower court, based on the following facts: (a) determined that the Plaintiff was not entitled to claim for the full amount of the agreed fees, barring any special circumstance; (b) the Plaintiff’s allegation that the amount of the agreed fees was 0 years following the Plaintiff’s request for the first instance judgment to the effect that the fixed amount of fees was 0 days before and after the date of the instant case’s assignment; and (c) the Plaintiff’s allegation that the fixed amount of fees was 0 days after the Plaintiff’s request for the first instance judgment was 60 days after the date of the instant case’s assignment; and (d) the Plaintiff’s allegation that the fixed amount of fees was 10 days after the date of final appeal and the fixed amount of fees was 10 days after the Plaintiff’s request for the first instance judgment to the effect that the Plaintiff was not delegated to the Plaintiff’s final judgment and conclusive.

2. The above judgment of the court below is not acceptable in the following respect.

As properly explained by the court below, in a case where there is an agreement with the client on the remuneration for the attorney-at-law's delegated affairs, an attorney-at-law who completed the delegated affairs may claim the full amount of the agreed remuneration, barring any special circumstance. If there are special circumstances to deem that the amount unfairly excessive remuneration is contrary to the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of equity, only the amount of remuneration within the reasonable scope may be claimed. However, this is an exceptional case where the freedom of contract is excluded, and thus, reasonable grounds should be clarified in order to treat it exceptionally.

However, the court below's reasoning that the terms and conditions of this case's fee agreement are unfairly excessive, first of all, it is a question whether the delegation case's contribution or activity level in the process that led to the final winning of the case, and the degree of difficulty of performing the lawsuit itself, are contradictory and contradictory to the court below's reasoning, and thus, it can be used as a basis for excluding the validity of the fee agreement in this case's case's fee agreement. Even if the court below's reasoning is that it is disadvantageous to the plaintiff, in the crisis where the plaintiff loses the land ownership subject to the lawsuit due to the loss of both the court of first and second instances, the plaintiff's agent is in charge of litigation and the court of final appeal's appeal's revocation and return of the case's case's whole process, and then the court below's whole process of this case's case's whole procedure where the plaintiff can preserve the ownership by obtaining the final judgment of winning of the case's case's case's judgment, legal issues, the whole period and amount of the plaintiff's profit, retainer and contingent fee, possibility of success fee, etc.

Therefore, the court below held that the successful remuneration under the agreement of this case is unfairly excessive and thus contrary to the principle of equity and can only claim the registration of transfer of 7/10 shares out of the land of this case agreed to be the successful remuneration, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the conditional remuneration agreement.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)