[ad_1]
In front of the Seoul Central District Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. News 1
It was ruled that the lawyer should return part of the fees if the defense was not sincere, such as presenting it as a ground for appeal to the extent that it was partially revised so that it was not very different from the ground for appeal written by the client.
According to law enforcement officials on the 25th, in a lawsuit against the client’s lawsuit for returning attorney’s fees filed by the client against Attorney A, the 39-Seoul Central District Court only (Principal Woo -jung Jung) ruled in the case of a partial victory by the plaintiff saying, “He pays 8 million won, which is 40% of the client’s compensation.”
The client appealed after being sentenced to eight years in prison in an appeal trial for fraud under the Weighted Penalties for Specific Economic Crimes Act in 2011. At that time, the client appointed a new attorney A (14th Research Institute and Judicial Training) who was previously a former prosecutor in the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office and paid 20 million won in compensation.
As a result of verifying the draft ground of appeal that Counsel A intends to present to the Supreme Court, the client found the content that appeared to have been copied and pasted without any change in the letter of appeal and the letter he used in the appeal trial.
Consequently, the client demanded the return of the remuneration to Attorney A and submitted a letter of dismissal to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Attorney A filed a ground of appeal with the Supreme Court.
Since then, Attorney A has returned 4 million won of the total compensation, but the client filed a lawsuit in March of last year seeking the return of the remaining 16 million won.
The court ruled, “The amount of attorneys’ remuneration the defendant receives is excessive in light of the principle of good faith or the notion of fairness,” and said, “Please return an additional 4 million won of the remuneration “. Because it is 8 million won, which is 40% of the 20 million won, it means paying an additional 4 million won that has yet to be returned.
The court noted that “the defendant did not carry out any other demand than to visit the plaintiff several times and present the reason for the appeal until the plaintiff had submitted the letter of dismissal from his lawyer.
The judge said: “The lawyer visited the plaintiff several times and did not carry out any lawsuits other than presenting the reasons for the appeal.” I can see.”
Reporter Han Young-hye [email protected]
[ad_2]
