Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. According to each of the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff entered into the instant delegation contract with the Defendant on or around December 9, 2013, with the prosecution that when the criminal case against the Defendant was not prosecuted by the Defendant, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the contingent fee of KRW 11,00,000,000, and the prosecution made a disposition against the Defendant on March 18, 2016.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 11,000,000 won for contingent fees and delay damages to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
2. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion is null and void in violation of the principle of good faith or the principle of equity. As such, the Defendant does not have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff contingent remuneration (Section 1), and even if the contingent remuneration contract is valid.
In light of the above legal principles, the defendant is not obligated to pay the contingent fees to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff's duty is not recognized as the plaintiff's duty and the non-prosecution disposition in this case is not recognized.
(2) First, the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da20011 Decided July 23, 2015 ruled that contingent fee agreements in criminal cases can be evaluated as violating good morals and other social order, and thus, it should be deemed null and void in accordance with Article 103 of the Civil Code.
However, the foregoing en banc Decision is difficult to readily conclude that a juristic act is null and void pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Act solely on the ground that the previous fee agreement is the name of contingent remuneration, as the reference point for determining whether it is null and void in violation of good morals and other social order. The foregoing en banc Decision is concluded after July 23, 2015.