(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.05.17 2016가단10169

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.05.17 2016가단10169

선임료반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that he was the Defendant of Daejeon District Court 2014No1884, the Daejeon District Court appointed the Defendant as the defense counsel upon the introduction of Defendant C, and on October 24, 2014, paid the Defendant a fee of KRW 30 million to the Defendant. The Defendant did not submit a defense counsel appointment and oral argument.

Since the defendant, although he did not intend to defend the plaintiff's criminal case, by deceiving the plaintiff and deceiving the plaintiff as a commission, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 30 million won with compensation or unjust enrichment based on the tort and damages for delay.

2. The fact that the defendant accepted the plaintiff's criminal appellate case and received 30 million won as the fees for appointment, and the fact that the defendant did not submit the attorney appointment and oral argument to the full bench does not conflict between the parties.

However, in light of the facts and circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, that the original defendant agreed to accept the fee of KRW 30 million on the condition of innocence judgment, and return KRW 30 million where the judgment of innocence was not pronounced, the plaintiff was aware at the time of the agreement that the defendant would not submit the counsel appointment system, the defendant conducted meetings two times after the appointment of counsel, and prepared and delivered a document analyzing the records related to the case from the plaintiff and the plaintiff's wife, and the plaintiff was sentenced to acquittal at the criminal appellate court, and the above judgment became final and conclusive through the Supreme Court, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the defendant, without the intention of defense, by deceiving the plaintiff under the pretext of appointment fee of KRW 30 million, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on this premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.09.14 2016고단2324

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2014.02.10 2013고정477

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.15 2016고단30

-서울북부지방법원 2019.02.14 2018고단2326 (1)

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2013.04.22 2012고단945