1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition or deletion of the following parts, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or added parts]

B. The Defendants asserted that the amount set forth in the instant contingent fee arrangement is unreasonably excessive and contrary to the principle of good faith and equity.

In principle, in cases where there is an agreement with the client on the remuneration for the handling of delegated affairs of an attorney-at-law, barring any special circumstance, an attorney-at-law who completed the delegated affairs may claim the agreed amount in full, barring any special circumstance. However, in cases where there are special circumstances to deem that the agreed amount of remuneration is unreasonable and contrary to the principle of good faith or equity due to the client’s excessive excessive amount of remuneration, the attorney-at-law who has completed the delegated affairs may claim only the amount of remuneration within the reasonable scope (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da57626, Apr. 25, 1995; 200Da50190, Apr. 12, 2002). The burden of proof on the existence of such special circumstances lies in unfairly claiming that the agreed amount of remuneration is excessive.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole by integrating the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 26 as to the instant case, namely, ① the case of revoking a fraudulent act against B, as the Gwangju District Court Decision 2012Gahap3410, the judgment against the Plaintiff in favor of the Plaintiff, the judgment against the Gwangju High Court 2012Na5543, the Supreme Court Decision 2014Da6381, and the Gwangju High Court after remanding.