Mandate Agreement Guide: Duties, Fees, Termination, and Damages

Based on 40 consultation cases · Updated October 4, 2026 · Translated from the Korean original.

The terms of a mandate agreement are determined by the parties’ agreement, and the mandatary must handle the matter with the care of a good manager, in accordance with the purpose of the mandate. Whether fees are payable and whether termination or damages are justified must be assessed by considering the agreed terms, how the work was actually handled, and the circumstances in which the agreement ended.

People in the mandate → Client or mandator → Mandatary or lawyer → Client entrusts a matter and mandatary accepts → Was the work handled with required care and in line with the mandate purpose? → Yes — Civil Act Article 681 → Is a fee agreed or implied for a lawyer case? → No — Civil Act Articles 390 and 391 → Damages may arise if a breach caused loss → Yes — Civil Act Article 686 → Did the mandate end early or at a disadvantageous time? → No — mandates are generally gratuitous → Yes — Civil Act Articles 689 and 686 paragraph 3 → Fee and ending terms determine payment or settlement → No → Check causation client fault and circumstances → Was the loss caused by a breach and did client fault affect it? → Check fee terms and fairness → Was a fee agreed or implied and is the amount reasonable? → Check work benefit costs and property → Consider work completed client benefit costs avoided loss…

Key points

A mandate is formed when one party entrusts the handling of a matter to the other and the other party accepts. The mandatary must handle the work with the care of a good manager, in accordance with the mandate’s purpose (Civil Act, Articles 680 and 681 (민법 제680조, 제681조)).
The mandatary’s duties may go beyond simply carrying out the procedures requested. In professional work, the mandatary may be required to explain and advise or take measures to protect the client’s rights if an unfavorable outcome is foreseeable or a choice needs to be made (Examples 4, 7, and 18).
If the mandatary breaches the duty of care and causes loss, liability for damages may arise. However, the causal connection between the loss and the breach, any fault on the client’s part, and other specific circumstances must also be considered (Civil Act, Articles 390 and 391 (민법 제390조, 제391조); Examples 2, 5, 10, and 20).
A mandate is generally a gratuitous contract, so an agreement is required to claim a fee. However, when a lawyer is retained for a case, an implied fee agreement may be recognized unless there are special circumstances, such as an agreement to work without compensation. The amount may take into account the complexity of the case, the effort involved, and the benefit obtained by the client (Civil Act, Article 686 (민법 제686조); Example 16).
The agreed fee may generally be claimed. However, if it is unreasonably excessive in light of special circumstances, it may be limited to a reasonable amount under the principles of good faith or fairness (Examples 14 and 16).
Either party may terminate a mandate agreement at any time. However, if a party terminates it without unavoidable cause at a time disadvantageous to the other party, that party may have to compensate for loss that could have been avoided by terminating at an appropriate time (Civil Act, Article 689 (민법 제689조); Examples 17 and 25).
If the agreement ends before completion, the advance fee is not necessarily always returned in full or automatically retained by the mandatary. The parties may settle the amount by considering the extent of the work already performed, the effort involved, the benefit obtained by the client, and the costs of the work (Civil Act, Article 686, Paragraph 3 (민법 제686조 제3항); Examples 9 and 11).
The mandatary must deliver to the mandator any money or property received in handling the mandated matter. Benefits obtained in a manner that undermines the relationship of trust underlying the mandate may also be subject to return (Civil Act, Article 684 (민법 제684조); Example 23).

Frequently asked questions

Q. Can I recover damages if my lawyer misses the appeal deadline or fails to tell me that an appeal is possible?

If the appeal deadline is missed, the mandatary may have breached the duty of care of a good manager. Even where the mandatary did not advise the client to appeal, the mandatary may have been required to explain the judgment and the likelihood of success on appeal. Whether compensation is actually payable, and in what amount, depends on factors such as the benefit that could have been obtained through an appeal and the causal connection between the breach and the loss.

Case 5, Case 18

Q. Does the mandatary have to tell me about important risks related to the work I entrusted to them?

If, while carrying out the work, it becomes apparent that the client’s instructions may lead to an unfavorable result or that measures are needed to protect the client’s rights, the mandatary may be required to explain the situation, give advice, or take appropriate measures. The scope of the specific duty depends on the work entrusted and on the circumstances that were known or foreseeable at the time.

Case 1, Case 4, Case 7, Case 18

Q. If we did not agree on a fee in advance, do I have to pay the full amount the lawyer demands?

When a lawyer is retained for a case, an implied fee agreement may be recognized unless there are special circumstances, such as an agreement to work without compensation. Even so, the amount claimed is not automatically accepted in full. Its reasonableness may be disputed by considering the circumstances and complexity of the case, the effort involved in handling it, and the benefit obtained by the client.

Case 16

Q. Can I get back the advance fee I already paid if the mandate agreement ends partway through?

An advance fee may serve not only to cover the costs of handling the work but also as an advance payment of part of the fee. It is therefore difficult to conclude that it must be returned in full or is automatically retained in full just because the contract has ended. The parties may settle the amount by considering the work actually performed, the effort involved, the client’s benefit, and the expenses. A reasonable fee may also be recognized when the mandatary’s efforts lead to a settlement outside court.

Case 9

Q. Do I have to pay damages to the other party if I terminate a mandate agreement?

As a general rule, a mandate may be terminated at any time, and the fact alone that the termination causes the other party a loss does not create liability for damages. However, if the mandate is terminated without unavoidable cause at a time that is disadvantageous to the other party, the terminating party may have to compensate for loss that could have been avoided by terminating at an appropriate time.

Case 17, Case 25

Q. Is a success-fee agreement in a criminal case, conditional on release or a suspended sentence, valid?

The Supreme Court en banc decision cited in the example held that agreements for success fees in criminal cases entered into after that decision are void for violating Article 103 of the Civil Act (민법 제103조). The example explains that an agreement entered into before the decision cannot necessarily be deemed void solely because of that decision.

Case 19

Q. If the mandatary sells entrusted real estate for a low price, is it enough to return only the money actually received?

It is not necessarily sufficient to return only the actual sale proceeds received. In the example, the court held that, in light of the terms of the mandate and the circumstances of the transaction, the mandatary had to return to the mandator an amount equivalent to the fair market value.

Case 23

Q. If the lawyer in charge leaves the firm, can the original law firm claim part of the success fee?

In the example, the law firm was held responsible for ending the contract where the relationship of trust had broken down because the client had not been adequately informed that the responsible lawyer was leaving the firm or of the firm’s response. The firm could not claim a success fee calculated according to the proportion of work already completed. In practice, both the contract terms and the circumstances in which it ended must be considered.

Case 11

Relevant laws

Civil Act, Article 103 (민법 제103조)
Civil Act, Article 390 (민법 제390조)
Civil Act, Article 391 (민법 제391조)
Civil Act, Article 680 (민법 제680조)
Civil Act, Article 681 (민법 제681조)
Civil Act, Article 684 (민법 제684조)
Civil Act, Article 686 (민법 제686조)
Civil Act, Article 689 (민법 제689조)
Civil Act, Article 690 (민법 제690조)
Civil Act, Article 691 (민법 제691조)
Civil Act, Article 746 (민법 제746조)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 89 (민사소송법 제89조)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 90 (민사소송법 제90조)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 268 (민사소송법 제268조)
Certified Judicial Scrivener Act, Article 30 (법무사법 제30조)

Watch out for

The fact that a mandatary has authority to represent a party in litigation does not, by itself, mean that the mandatary is contractually required to take every action within the scope of that authority. The actual duty must be determined in light of the mandate agreement and the specific circumstances.
If a mandate agreement ends before completion, fees and expenses may be settled according to the extent of the work performed. It is best not to assume as a rule that the entire advance fee must be returned or that the entire success fee is payable.
A claim for damages involves not only a breach of duty but also the resulting loss and the causal connection between them. If the client was at fault in causing or increasing the loss, that may be taken into account in determining the amount of damages.
A mandate agreement may be terminated because it is based on a relationship of trust between the parties. However, terminating it without unavoidable cause at a time disadvantageous to the other party may give rise to liability for damages.

Source cases

This guide was compiled by AI from the following Korea Legal Aid Corporation consultation cases (in Korean).

This guide is general legal information about Korean law, not legal advice for your situation. For a specific case, consult a lawyer or the Korea Legal Aid Corporation (call 132 in Korea).