1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The above decision became final and conclusive around that time.

The Plaintiff acquired the contingent fee claims from the law firm F from the law firm F, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims through the service of a preparatory document as of August 16, 2018, based on the power to notify the assignment of claims delegated by the law firm F.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, the whole documentary evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the cause of the instant claim was made (Supreme Court Decision 95Da24609 Decided December 26, 1995, Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na205708 Decided February 2, 2017 (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da272873 Decided May 26, 2017) and was dismissed for non-trial trial.

[] In light of the above, there is no doubt about the occurrence of the obligation to pay contingent remuneration under the delegation contract of the first instance court.

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount (refer to the following calculation basis) sought by the plaintiff according to the settlement recommendation decision (refer to the amount obtained by the plaintiff among the 778,864 won [2,528,280 won [28,092,00 won (No. 72 of the above case's judgment No. 9) which is the principal amount of winning the case in the court of first instance] and damages for delay.

The principal of the decision to recommend reconciliation: 11,705,00 won for delay (5% per annum from November 6, 2009 to June 16, 2016): 3,872,271 won (=11,705,000 X (05/365) X2,415) for contingent remuneration: 778,864 won (=total 15,577,271 won X5%)

B. On February 1, 2013, the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the Defendant’s argument that the statute of limitations is asserted (A) was rendered on February 1, 2013, and the judgment of the court below was served on the law firm F on the 12th day of the same month. However, on February 12, 2013, the statute of limitations expired on February 12, 2016 up to three years, which is the statute of limitations for attorney’s fees.

As the plaintiff's assertion, even if the law firm F and the defendant agreed to pay contingent fees based on the delegation contract of lawsuit between the law firm F and the defendant, the statute of limitations should be deemed to have expired on February 27, 2016.

If why is the defendant, the defendant is different after the judgment of the court of first instance related to February 1, 2013 was rendered.