The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In full view of the evidence cited in the judgment, the lower court, based on which the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to return KRW 5 million from the retainers paid by the Plaintiff in the event the pertinent case was terminated without the second instance under a delegation contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant delegation contract”), and recognized the fact that the pertinent case was withdrawn during the first instance trial, and determined that the pertinent case was terminated without the second instance even if the Defendant and the Defendant were to withdraw by mutual consent with the other party against the Plaintiff’s will, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff only the remainder remaining after deducting five million won from the retainers due to the amount unpaid pursuant to the instant delegation contract.

Examining the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the interpretation of intent of the disposal document, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. Where an agreement exists between an attorney-at-law and a client concerning the fees for attorney-at-law's delegation of litigation concerning the contingent fees, an attorney-at-law who has completed the delegated affairs may, in principle, claim

However, in light of the ordinary relationship with the client, the course of the acceptance of the case, the process and difficulty of the case, the degree of effort, the value of the subject matter of lawsuit, the specific interest the client gained by winning the case, and other circumstances revealed in the pleading, the client may claim only the amount of remuneration within the reasonable scope exceptionally recognized, in exceptional circumstances where there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the agreed amount unfairly excessive is contrary to the principle of trust and good faith or the concept of equity.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Da35833, May 17, 2018). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, unfairly agreed on the contingent fee of the instant delegation contract.