[1] The meaning of "other general legal cases" under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act and whether "conciliation" under the same subparagraph is included in "conciliation under the Civil Code" (affirmative)

[2] Whether it is necessary to conduct arbitration or compromise in relation to the determination of the amount of compensation to be made between the victim of the traffic accident and the motor vehicle insurance company, etc. to which the perpetrator has joined, while receiving money and valuables, and between the victim of the traffic accident and the victim (negative)

[1] The term "other general legal cases" under Article 90 (2) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 2000) refers to a case where there is a dispute or doubt as to legal rights and obligations, or a case concerning the occurrence of new rights and obligations, and the term "conciliation" under the same subparagraph refers to a case where the parties to the above legal cases have reached mutual concession between them, and it includes not only a judicial compromise but also a reconciliation under the Civil Act.

[2] Even if it is necessary for an adjuster to submit a damage evaluation report to an insurance company in the course of performing his/her duties and present his/her opinions on the details thereof at the request of the insurance company and present his/her opinions on whether it is reasonable, this is limited to the damage adjuster’s inherent business, which is related to the investigation of damage caused by the insurance accident and the circumstances of damage amount. In addition, the damage adjuster’s participation in the process of receiving money and valuables or by proxy or proxy for the victim of the traffic accident in claiming insurance proceeds or in mediating for the insurance company to conduct arbitration or compromise or promoting convenience in relation to the determination of the amount of damage to be paid between the victim of the traffic accident and the automobile insurance company to which the victim and the perpetrator join,

[1] Article 90 subparagraph 2 (see current Article 109 subparagraph 1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 200) / [2] Article 204-4 of the Insurance Business Act, Article 90 subparagraph 2 (see current Article 109 subparagraph 1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 200)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 80Do628 delivered on March 10, 1981 (Gong1981, 13749) Supreme Court Decision 93Do3453 delivered on February 14, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1369) Supreme Court Decision 95Do1244 delivered on April 26, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1771), Supreme Court Decision 96Do2340 delivered on August 21, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2361) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Do563 delivered on May 10, 194 (Gong194, 1748) (Gong1994, 1748), Supreme Court Decision 2000Do10390 delivered on June 19, 200 (Gong1990309Ha decided March 23, 2005)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 98No7473 delivered on January 18, 2000

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Examining the employment evidence of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the records, the facts constituting a violation of each Attorney-at-Law Act can be recognized, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the rules of evidence, misapprehension of the legal principles concerning the admissibility of disadvantageous confessions under Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or misapprehension of the legal principles concerning

2. Attorneys-at-law is engaged in legal affairs widely with the mission of protecting fundamental human rights and realizing social justice. As such, the Attorney-at-law Act takes various measures such as strictly restricting the qualification of an attorney-at-law and requiring a person who does not comply with such qualification and discipline to follow the regulations necessary for the good faith and proper performance of his/her duties. If a person does not intervene in another person's legal cases in order to obtain money, goods, or other benefits, it would prejudice the interests of the parties or other interested persons, interfere with the fair and smooth operation of legal life, and thereby disrupt the legal order. In light of these, the Attorney-at-law Act prohibits a person who is not an attorney-at-law from dealing with legal affairs. In full view of these points, "other general legal cases" under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 200) refers to cases where there is a doubt or doubt with respect to legal rights and obligations, or where new rights and obligations have occurred (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do1360.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. A adjuster's duties are to confirm the occurrence of damages, to determine the appropriateness of applying the terms and conditions of insurance, the application of the relevant laws and regulations, to assess the amount of damages, the circumstances of insurance proceeds, and other matters necessary for damage adjustment (see Article 204-4 of the Insurance Business Act). Even if a adjuster's duties are to submit a damage evaluation report to an insurance company in his/her performance of his/her duties, to clarify the grounds for the entries at the request of the insurance company and present his/her opinions on the validity thereof, it is limited to the damage evaluator's original duties, which is related to the investigation into damages arising from the insurance accident and the circumstances of the amount of damages. Furthermore, the damage adjuster's duties are to receive money or valuables and to act on behalf of the victim of the traffic accident to request insurance proceeds or to mediate or compromise with the victim of the traffic accident to determine the amount of damages or to act on behalf of the victim of the automobile insurance company and the victim of the damage (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Do563, May 10, 1994>

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant committed an act of inducing the victims to reach an agreement with the insurance company by contact with the insurance company on behalf of the victims of the traffic accident while delegated the damage adjustment service from the victims of the accident, and caused the victims to reach an agreement. The defendant's above act is merely an act of dealing with legal affairs concerning reconciliation in general legal cases under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act, and does not constitute other matters necessary for the damage adjustment under Article 204-4 of the Insurance Business Act, which belongs to the scope of the claims adjuster's business. In light of the records and the above legal principles, the court below's above fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, the legal principles concerning the scope of the claims of the damage adjuster under Article 204-4 of the Insurance Business Act, and the legal principles concerning Article 90

4. The court below maintained the first instance court where the defendant collected the entire amount from the victims, which is just under Article 90 subparagraph 2 and Article 94 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

The main point of the argument is that the remuneration for damage adjusting business under the Insurance Business Act among the money received by the defendant, which exceeds the legitimate part, shall be collected additionally. However, as seen above, the defendant's act is merely a case of dealing with legal affairs concerning reconciliation in general legal cases under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act, and it does not constitute other matters necessary for damage adjusting business under Article 204-4 of the Insurance Business Act, which belongs to the scope of the duties of an adjuster. Thus, the above argument is not acceptable

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)