형사사건에 관한 성공보수금약정의 효력에 관한 연구 - 대법원 2015. 7. 23. 선고 2015다200111 전원합의체 판결 -

The Supreme Court's decision that the contingent fee agreements in criminal cases are violations of Article 103 of the Civil Law Code is well understandable in view of the legislative cases of other countries, relevant theories, the roles of lawyers and the general public's view of the law. However, although the Supreme Court did not specifically mention the contingent fee agreements in family cases, it is appropriate that the effects of the contingent fee agreements in family cases be denied the consideration of a secured family system, retention of marriage, and support-related elements in the division of assets. In this case, although the defendant had not realized that the contingent fee agreements in criminal cases were against the social regulations, he did have a perception of the needy circumstances of the plaintiff at least, and of the fact that there was no causal relationship between the fulfillment of the conditions of success and his work, both of which can be considered basic circumstances that are against the social regulations. It can be concluded that the defendant did possess knowledge of Article 103. Therefore, in my opinion, this case should have been retroactively nullified by the application of Article 103. In this case, the decision that the contingent fee agreements in criminal cases are to be nullified will strengthen the basis of trust in the judiciary system. However, in criminal cases where the future effects of past nullification is recognized, the decision regarding the contingent fee agreements is not understandable.