beta
Text
1. Defendant C: (a) KRW 20,284,472 for the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 13,522,981 for each of the said money; and (c) from December 8, 2016 for each of the said money.
Reasons
1. The facts of the reasons for the claim in the separate sheet of the judgment as to the reasons for the claim are each acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the numbers of numbers), or there is no dispute between the parties.
According to the above, the defendants are obligated to pay each of the money stated in the text to the plaintiff.
2. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion
A. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is that Law Firm E, the transferor of the instant contract amount, did not contribute to, or did not have contributed to, the lawsuit to the extent of claiming the contingent fees to the Defendants, and delayed litigation procedures, and did not respond to the appraisal as well as did not properly respond to the appraisal, and did not cause the Defendants to lose the opportunity to take preservative measures, so the Defendants are not obliged to pay the agreed amount
B. In principle, an attorney-at-law who completed delegated affairs in the judgment may claim the agreed amount of remuneration, barring special circumstances. In extenuating circumstances, barring any special circumstance, he/she may claim only the reasonable amount of remuneration to the extent deemed reasonable, inasmuch as there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the amount of remuneration unfairly excessive is contrary to the principle of trust and good faith and the principle of equity. However, this is only an exceptional case where the freedom of contract is excluded.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da18322 Decided July 10, 2014, etc.). However, the Defendants are merely asserting as seen earlier, without submitting any evidence that the Plaintiff’s claim in this case contravenes the principle of good faith or the principle of equity, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.