The amount of fees that an attorney may request on delegated affairs in a lawsuit

Articles 2 and 686 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Da57626 delivered on April 25, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1945) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da50190 Delivered on April 12, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1085)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Park Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 2010Na2969 Decided July 14, 2010

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

As long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent as stated in the relevant disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the contents of the statement. In a case where there is a conflict of opinion regarding the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the interpretation of the intent of the parties expressed in the disposal document is at issue, the court shall reasonably interpret it in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and background leading up to the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6753, Jun.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below, citing the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, agreed to pay at least 35 million won contingent fees even in the case where the defendant success, mediation, or reconciliation, as well as the whole success of the delegated affairs in the first agreement concluded between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and thereafter, the defendant is liable to pay at least 35 million won contingent fees, which is the lowest amount of contingent fees promised under the first agreement, as long as the mediation is formed in the course of the defendant's attending the mediation date of the delegated case in this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the interpretation of legal acts

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

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 of remuneration in full, barring special circumstances. 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 and the records, the court below, citing the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in its holding, is just in holding that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the contingent fees to be paid with respect to the real estate No. 1 in accordance with the agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and it cannot be used as the standard of 74,179,500 won, which is the market price of the first instance court of the delegation case of this case, in calculating the contingent fees to be paid to the plaintiff with respect to the real estate No. 1 in this case, and the first and second agreements agreed to pay the contingent fees of at least 35 million won and the contingent fees of at least 25 million won in the case where mediation, reconciliation, etc. have been made with respect to the real estate No. 1 in this case, and as long as a voluntary adjustment has been made with respect to the real estate No. 1 in this case, the defendant is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-deok-soo (Presiding Justice)