Where an attorney-at-law delegates a lawsuit at 30 percent of the subject matter of the lawsuit and the contents of the delegated affairs;

If the plaintiff delegates the lawsuit of the non-party company to the attorney-at-law, the substitute decision is final and conclusive, even if the substitute decision became final and conclusive, if the case is pending in the court, it does not deal with the case entirely.

Article 686 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 (Attorney Yang Sung-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Full-time and one other (Attorney Lee Ho-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 4293No744 delivered on July 11, 1961

Of the judgment of the original court, the part against the plaintiff's defendant Park Nam-dong shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

Each appeal by the defendant's normal flag and Kim Jong-soo shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the defendant's normal flag and Kim Jong-soo shall be borne by the same defendants.

The grounds of appeal of this title by the Plaintiff’s agent, Kim Jong-ok, Defendant’s normal period, and Kim Young-soo’s agent are as shown in the separate appellate brief.

As to ground of appeal No. 1 by Plaintiff’s agent

In determining that the transfer registration of the mining right under Defendant 1 was lawful, the original judgment: (a) delegated the legal representative for the mining right between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 corporation to the non-party 2 attorney-at-law with an agreement that the plaintiff shall pay the 30 percent share of the mining right as remuneration on the condition of the decision in favor of the plaintiff; and (b) even though the judgment of substitute stand, if the plaintiff's winning decision became final and conclusive by the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the payment of remuneration shall become final and conclusive; (c) however, according to the purport of the oral argument, the plaintiff's delegation of the lawsuit with the non-party 1 corporation to the non-party 2 attorney-at-law for the delegation of the contract with the contents of the delegation of the plaintiff's winning of the lawsuit to the non-party 2; and (d) in the above fee contract without preparing the contract, the complete resolution of the lawsuit shall be deemed to be the contents of the delegation of the affairs; and (d) as such, (e) the part of the judgment is reversed by misapprehending of the plaintiff's claim for compensation.

As to the ground of appeal by Defendant Kim Young-soo's agent

As determined in the judgment of the court below in this case for the following reasons: (a) the plaintiff and the defendant's normal period of this case: (b) the extraction right was granted to the defendant's normal flag to delegate the management and operation of coal mine; and (c) the extraction was not simply considered to be the sale and purchase of the mine mined; (d) so long as the plaintiff's name is used as it is or the plaintiff's supervisory instruction was the object of the right prohibited under Article 13 of the Mining Industry Act; and (e) there is no violation of any law in regard to such recognition in the original judgment; and (e) there is no violation of any law in regard to the defendant's preliminary assertion that the defendant's normal term has access to the coal mine in this case as the representative of the defendant Park Yong-Nam, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the original judgment as the whole right of the court below, and there is no finding any violation of the rules of evidence in the original judgment.

The appeal also asserts that the defendant Kim Yong-soo is the representative of defendant Park Jong-chul, but it cannot be the new statement of fact that is not asserted in the original trial, which cannot be the ground for appeal.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who apply Articles 406, 396, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act respectively.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-ho (Presiding Judge)