Attorney Kwon Kyunga, Who Missed Court Hearings, Confirmed to Pay 65 Million Won in Damages
Supreme Court: "Performance Memorandum Cannot Be Denied Based on Unstated Conditions"
The Supreme Court has ruled that parties cannot refuse to fulfill the contract stipulated in a memorandum of performance for damages on the grounds of conditions not specified in the document.
On May 29, the First Division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Seo Kyunghwan) overturned the appellate court's ruling, which had dismissed the plaintiff's claim for the agreed amount, in the appeal trial of a damages lawsuit filed by plaintiff A, who lost her daughter due to school violence, against Attorney Kwon Kyunga, her former legal representative, and Haemir Law Firm. The case was remanded to the Seoul High Court. However, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal concerning the 65 million won in compensation for emotional distress and the 2.2 million won in legal fee refunds from Haemir, thereby finalizing that part of the judgment.
Previously, Attorney Kwon failed to appear at three scheduled hearings in the appellate trial of the civil lawsuit that A had filed against the offending students, resulting in the appeal being withdrawn. She also failed to inform her client about the first-instance victory, causing the deadline for appeal to lapse.
Hot Picks Today
Will Stocks Jump First After the War?...Examining the Impact of the Strait of Hormuz Reopening [Weekend Money]
- "I Almost Missed Out on Hundreds of Thousands of Won... I Was the Only One Who Didn't Know" How to Find Hidden Government Benefits [The Essentials of Benefits]
- "I'm Not Demented"... Trump Gains 6kg in a Year But Deemed 'Healthy'
- "Best Homeroom Teacher"... Hong Kong Education Sector in Shock Over Spread of "Princess Carry" Photos
- "Why Is There So Much Fun in Korea?"...Foreign Tourists Now Hooked on PC Bangs [K-Holic]
Subsequently, Attorney Kwon notified A of these facts and provided her with a memorandum of performance stating that she would pay a total of 90 million won by the end of last year. The appellate court had found that this memorandum was conditional on "the case not being reported in the media," and since media coverage had occurred, ruled there was no obligation to pay. However, the Supreme Court held that "the memorandum of performance does not specify any payment conditions, and it is difficult to understand why an attorney, as a legal expert, would fail to include agreed-upon terms." The Court stated that the document should be interpreted according to its explicit wording.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.