1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. In around 2011, the Plaintiff filed a complaint for fraud on the ground that C borrowed money without intent or ability to repay the money.

The police investigated the above accusation case and sent it to the Jinju District Prosecutors' Office according to the opinion that there is no suspicion of lack of evidence.

B. On November 21, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a delegation agreement with the Defendant, an attorney-at-law, to appoint the Defendant as an attorney-at-law for the accusation of the said accusation case (hereinafter “instant delegation agreement”), and paid KRW 3 million under the pretext of commencement.

C. In order to conduct administrative affairs under the instant delegation agreement, the Defendant submitted a counsel’s written opinion to the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the

On February 28, 2012, the prosecutor of the regional prosecutor's office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the delegation contract of this case contains the conditions under which the plaintiff was present at the time when he was investigated by the investigative agency, but the defendant did not comply with such conditions. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff three million won which he received in the name of the fees.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff was included in the conditions of the Defendant’s presence when the Plaintiff undergoes an investigation at an investigative agency, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Rather, the facts acknowledged earlier are the following circumstances, namely, a delegation contract, the purpose of which is to handle the affairs between the delegating and the mandatary, and even if the delegating did not reach the intent of the mandator.