A Brief Study on the Nullity of Contingency Fee in Violation of the Act on Special Cases for Inter-Korean Families and the recognition of Delegation Agreement and Implied Remuneration Agreement : Focusing on the Supreme Court’s 2023da298670 decision,

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the contingency fee in a criminal case was null due to violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act, making an active interpretation to restore the public nature of attorneys and trust in the judiciary. Disputes over attorneys’fees, especially contingency fee, continue. The current Attorney-at-Law Act does not contain any provisions that limit the types or standards of attorneys' fees, or restrict attorney fees in terms of substance or procedure. The contingency fee in civil cases is a dispute concerning the legal relationship between the opposing parties, and it is permitted in accordance with the principle of private autonomy as the results are divided into winning and losing. In addition, the significance of existence is recognized in that even those who cannot afford to pay attorney fees can appoint an attorney under the condition of paying contingency fees. The Supreme Court’s 2023da298670 decision, sentenced on April 4, 2024, is the first case in which a civil case's contingency fee was rendered null due to violation of Article 15 of the ｢Act on Special Cases Concerning Family Relationship, Inheritance, etc. between Residents in South and North Korea｣ which states, “A legal act done other than through an estate administrator with regard to inherited or bequeathed property shall be void.”It was also determined that even if the full contingency fee is void as partial nullity of juristic act, the remaining agreement, the attorney delegation agreement, is valid and an implied remuneration agreement can be recognized. If both parties had known at the time of the legal act that a part of the legal act was void, the hypothetical intention that they would have prepared for it should be asserted and proven. This is a case in which the Supreme Court made a balanced judgment based on comprehensive consideration of the normal business practices in the industry, the interests and disadvantages of the parties, etc. As shown above, the Supreme Court is moving in the direction of ensuring the appropriateness of attorney fees through its rulings on attorney fees.