One Wrong Form, ₩120 Million in Damages: The Costly Difference Between Withdrawing an Appeal and Dropping a Case (Entirely)

By Juwon Kang, April 24, 2026

A simple (?) clerical error by a law firm employee — filing the wrong withdrawal document with the court — cost a client a hard-won property interest worth over ₩165 million. A Korean court has now ordered the firm and its attorney to pay ₩120 million in damages. Here are the key points:

—

The Mistake

– Client A had partially won a lawsuit against a family member over inherited property, and instructed attorney B to file a withdrawal of appeal — a routine step to finalize the favorable first-instance judgment.
– A staff member at the law firm filed the wrong document: instead of an appeal withdrawal, they submitted a case withdrawal (소취하서), which has an entirely different and far more drastic legal effect.
– Under Korean civil procedure, withdrawing the entire case triggers the prohibition on re-filing — meaning the same claim cannot be brought again.

The Fallout

– To prevent the withdrawal from taking effect, Client A needed the opposing party (a family member) to file a formal objection within two weeks of receiving notice, under Article 266(6) of the Civil Procedure Act.
– The family member agreed to file the objection — but only on the condition that Client A give up a portion of the property interest she had won in the original lawsuit.
– Backed into a corner, Client A surrendered assets worth approximately ₩165.92 million.

What the Court Decided

– The Gwangju District Court (Judge Kim Han-ul) found attorney B liable for tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act, ruling that the attorney had performed litigation duties in a negligent and insincere manner, falling below the standard of care required of a reasonably diligent legal representative.
– The law firm was held jointly and severally liable alongside the attorney.
– Damages were set at ₩120 million, reflecting a partial reduction from the full loss of ₩165.92 million.

The Failed Settlement Defense

– Shortly after the incident, the law firm paid Client A ₩30 million and had her sign an agreement stating she would raise “no further objections” regarding the case.
– The firm argued in court that this constituted a non-suit agreement — a binding waiver of the right to bring future legal claims.
– The court rejected this argument. It found that the ₩30 million was characterized in the document as compensation for inconvenience and emotional distress — in other words, a solatium payment. The no-objection clause therefore covered only non-economic harm, and could not be read as a surrender of the right to sue for the far larger financial loss.



Why This Matters

This case is a stark reminder that procedural documents in litigation are not interchangeable, and that law firms bear real financial exposure when administrative errors deprive clients of their legal victories. For practitioners, it also illustrates that quick settlement payments framed as goodwill gestures will not automatically shield a firm from a full damages claim — courts will look at the substance and scope of what was actually agreed to.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=218585