1. The defendant shall pay 7,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from February 4, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 2, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-1, and Eul evidence 2, the facts constituting the reasons for the claim can be acknowledged. As examined below, each statement in Eul evidence 1-1 through 3, Eul evidence 2 and the testimony in Eul witness Eul cannot be followed, and there is no other counter-proof, so the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at a rate of 20% per annum from February 4, 2015 to the day of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant asserted that the contract of this case is null and void as it constitutes a juristic act contrary to the social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Code, because it is for the purpose of "to promise to receive money and valuables from a person other than an attorney-at-law and to act as an agent for a litigation" prohibited by the Attorney-at-Law Act.

According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1-3 and 2-2 and witness B, the defendant, on whom acquisition tax, etc. was imposed by the head of Sungnam-si, delegated the above tax accounting corporation to file a tax appeal claim. The above tax accounting corporation's acceptance of the case but the appeal was dismissed. The above tax accounting corporation recommended the plaintiff who was an attorney-at-law of the above tax accounting corporation at the time when he recommended the defendant to institute an administrative litigation, and was working as an attorney-at-law of the above tax accounting corporation at the time. The fact that the delegation contract of this case was concluded between the defendant who accepted the recommendation and the plaintiff, and because the financial situation of the defendant is difficult, it can be acknowledged that the above tax accounting corporation paid the commencement of the delegation contract of this case to the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant, but the above fact alone is recognized.