Background
To expand a hair salon franchise business, our client engaged a legal professional in July 2021 to review and revise a franchise agreement, paying KRW 2,000,000 (in addition to an earlier KRW 200,000 consultation fee). The professional was to email a draft and then deliver a final version reflecting our client's comments as an editable file.
Two months later, no final version had arrived, and our client twice requested a refund in September 2021. Our client applied for a payment order for the KRW 2,000,000, which became a lawsuit when the other side objected. After losing at first instance, the other side appealed.
What Was at Stake
The other side argued that (1) no deadline had been agreed, (2) our client was at fault for not providing a mailing address, and (3) the money could not be returned as a payment made for an unlawful purpose, because our client sought to fix an existing contract that violated the law.
How Changchun Helped
The appellate court accepted the following arguments made on our client's behalf by Law Firm Changchun.
No refusal to accept performance. Even without the address, the other side had not performed as promised, so our client could not be said to have refused delivery.
The contract ended by mutual conduct. With no performance for a long time and neither side willing to continue, the contract was found to have been terminated by implied mutual agreement.
Not a payment for an unlawful purpose. Seeking a professional's help to cure legal problems did not offend public morals.
Outcome
The first-instance court granted our client's claim, and in December 2023 the appellate court dismissed the appeal. The other side must return KRW 2,000,000 with interest and late-payment damages from July 5, 2021. Each side bears its own appeal costs.
When paid work is never delivered, confirming in writing what was to be delivered and when is the first step toward recovering the fee. (Outcomes depend on the facts of each case.)