1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from August 31, 2014 to November 24, 2016.

Basic Facts

On March 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to receive the contingent fee of KRW 20 million (excluding value-added tax) and KRW 30 million (excluding value-added tax) at the time of non-prosecution of a non-prosecution of a non-prosecution of a non-prosecution of a suspicion, by concluding a contract on delegation of litigation affairs with the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office (201 type No. 119267) that the Plaintiff will take charge of a criminal case against the Defendant in the prosecution stage of a criminal case against the Defendant.

As a result of the plaintiff's performance of litigation affairs, the above criminal case against the defendant was not prosecuted on November 8, 2013.

The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the contingent remuneration by August 30, 2014 through the content-certified mail on August 8, 2014, but the Defendant did not comply with the request.

[Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute. According to the above facts, according to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including a provisional number) and the overall purport of the argument, the plaintiff's right to a successful fee claim for the determination of the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff's delegated affairs are terminated, and as such, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff the contingent fee of KRW 30 million (excluding value-added tax) and the delay damages in accordance with the contract for the contingent fee as stipulated in the above delegation contract.

A contingent fee agreement on the defendant's argument and the defendant's argument in criminal cases is null and void in violation of good morals and other social order.

Considering the fact that the Defendant already paid KRW 22 million as the retainers, the Defendant did not have any sales since the business since December 2014, the severity of the case, the progress and difficulty of the case, and the degree of efforts, etc., the contingent fee of KRW 33 million should be reduced drastically because it is excessively excessive and unreasonable.

Judgment

The contingent fee agreements in criminal cases with respect to the assertion of invalidation are null and void in violation of good morals and other social order, which are concluded after July 23, 2015 by the Supreme Court en banc Decision.