Compare a Korean corporate legal retainer with a per-matter quote using expected matter volume, included scope, overages, urgency premiums, VAT, external expenses, and internal time.
The starting values are illustrative, not official averages or recommended legal fees. Align the matter definition, scope, overage rules, and VAT basis, then use six to twelve months of records.
Normalize both quotes to one horizon, matter volume, internal hourly value, and VAT basis.
Whole months from 1 to 120
Use the same normalized matter definition for both quotes
Replacement labor cost or contribution value
VAT basis
VAT is not added again to external expenses.
Include the monthly scope, overage matters, and out-of-scope projects.
Filing, registration, translation, travel, and other cash expenses
Separate the average matter fee, expected urgency premium, and preventive reviews.
Filing, registration, translation, travel, and other cash expenses
12-month economic-cost comparison
Retainer KRW 11,868,000 saved
Retainer total
KRW 33,010,000
Per-matter total
KRW 44,878,000
Annualized saving
KRW 11,868,000
KRW 33,010,000
Monthly equivalent KRW 2,750,833
KRW 44,878,000
Monthly equivalent KRW 3,739,833
60
72
0
83.3%
The urgency-adjusted per-matter supply price is KRW 583,000.
Check which option is cheaper immediately below and above each point.
3.4578 matters/month
Immediately below: Per matter · immediately above: Retainer
Each threshold keeps all other inputs fixed and changes one supply price until the total economic costs match.
KRW 2,899,091
The retainer is cheaper when its monthly supply price is below this amount.
KRW 380,360
The retainer is cheaper when the base per-matter fee is above this amount.
About 0.53 months is where the advantage changes from per matter to retainer.
This is a linear comparison with annual items spread over 12 months, not an invoice or refund date.
Korean rules current in 2026 · primary sources verified 2026-07-31
Comparing a monthly retainer with a per-matter quote is not as simple as placing the monthly fee next to one matter price. The real budget depends on the work included in the retainer, the included matter allowance, overage pricing, projects excluded from the ordinary advisory scope, urgency premiums, external expenses, and the time employees spend preparing and reviewing each request.
This calculator converts those items into Korean won over one shared comparison horizon. It shows the service-fee supply amount, optional 10% VAT, external expenses, internal time cost, total economic cost, and break-even points for matter volume, the monthly retainer fee, and the base per-matter fee.
The result is a planning comparison, not a score for legal quality. Counsel expertise, response time, assigned-attorney continuity, conflict checks, confidentiality, data handling, and the value of preventing disputes remain separate procurement questions. Use the result to structure a quote review and budget discussion, then review the actual engagement agreement with someone who understands the company’s legal work.
The definition of one matter often matters more than the headline price. One firm may count a short telephone question as one matter, while another may treat a contract draft plus two revision rounds as one package. If those billing units remain different, both retainer utilization and the average per-matter fee become misleading.
If the retainer is managed by included hours rather than matters, do not force hours into an arbitrary count. Build a consistent internal workload unit from time records, or evaluate hour utilization separately before using a normalized matter count in this calculator.
Enter lawyer fees on one consistent tax basis. When both quotes state supply prices before VAT, turn on the 10% VAT option. When both entries already include VAT, turn it off. Enter filing, registration, translation, travel, and similar disbursements as the expected cash amount; the calculator does not add VAT to those external-expense fields again.
| Option | Input | Evidence | Illustrative default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shared | Expected monthly matters | Matter log, email, or ticket history | 5 per month |
| Retainer | Monthly fee, included matters, overage fee | Engagement agreement and scope schedule | KRW 2M, 6, KRW 350k |
| Retainer | Annual out-of-scope fees | Past extra invoices and planned projects | KRW 3M per year |
| Per matter | Base fee per normalized matter | Quote or invoice by comparable work type | KRW 550k |
| Per matter | Urgent share and urgency premium | Urgency log and quote terms | 20% and 30% |
| Both | Internal time and external expenses | Time records and expense schedules | 3 vs 5 hours monthly |
The retainer service supply amount includes the setup fee, monthly fee, fees for matters above the included allowance, and the prorated annual out-of-scope budget. Optional VAT, prorated external expenses, and internal time cost are then added.
The base matter fee is adjusted for the expected share of urgent work and the urgency premium. That effective price is multiplied by expected matters, then setup and annual preventive-review fees, optional VAT, external expenses, and internal time are added.
A retainer is flat through the included allowance and then grows at the overage price, so its cost curve is piecewise linear. The per-matter option grows from the first matter. Those lines can cross once below the included allowance and once above it. The calculator returns only valid non-negative intersections and identifies the cheaper option immediately below and above each point. If the lines overlap across a range, it reports that range condition instead of inventing a single threshold.
This is an illustrative formula check, not an official Korean market average or recommended fee. Assume twelve months, five matters per month, an internal hourly value of KRW 60,000, and 10% VAT. The retainer is KRW 2,000,000 monthly with six included matters and a KRW 350,000 overage. The per-matter quote starts at KRW 550,000, with 20% of matters urgent and a 30% urgency premium.
| Cost item | Retainer | Per matter |
|---|---|---|
| Expected, included, and excess matters | 60, 72, 0 | 60 expected |
| Service-fee supply amount | KRW 27,500,000 | KRW 36,980,000 |
| VAT | KRW 2,750,000 | KRW 3,698,000 |
| External expenses | KRW 600,000 | KRW 600,000 |
| Internal time and value | 36 hours, KRW 2,160,000 | 60 hours, KRW 3,600,000 |
| Total economic cost | KRW 33,010,000 | KRW 44,878,000 |
KRW 11,868,000
About 3.4578/month
KRW 2,899,090.91
KRW 380,360.21
The per-matter option is cheaper at the very beginning because the retainer has a setup fee. Its recurring monthly economic cost is higher, so the cumulative comparison crosses at about 0.5315 months. That is a straight-line planning point with annual items spread over twelve months, not an invoice, payment, or refund date.
With only the matter count changed, the retainer remains KRW 33,010,000 while the per-matter option falls to KRW 14,095,600. The per-matter quote saves KRW 18,914,400 because most included retainer capacity is unused.
The included allowance is about 83.3% utilized, with no expected overage. Under the illustrative prices, the retainer saves KRW 11,868,000 over twelve months.
Expected overage reaches 24 matters. The retainer totals KRW 42,250,000 and the per-matter option totals KRW 67,964,800, so the retainer saves KRW 25,714,800.
High volume does not automatically make every retainer cheaper. If the retainer overage price exceeds the urgency-adjusted per-matter price, or excluded projects are substantial, the cost lines can cross again above the included allowance. That is why the result evaluates the actual price slopes instead of applying a simple high-volume rule.
This English page uses Korean law and KRW. It is not legal, tax, accounting, or procurement advice. It does not determine whether a lawyer may accept a matter, whether a service is within scope, whether input VAT is deductible, or whether a fee is reasonable for a specific engagement.
The National Law Information Center OPEN API returned the current Civil Act, Law ID 001706 and MST 284415, effective March 17, 2026. Article 680 defines a mandate through entrustment and acceptance. Article 681 requires the mandatary to exercise the care of a good manager, and Article 683 addresses status and final reporting. Article 686 distinguishes specially agreed remuneration and remuneration set by period. Article 689 permits either party to terminate while addressing damage caused by termination at a disadvantageous time without an unavoidable reason. These rules support checking scope, reporting, payment timing, renewal, termination, and handover terms; they do not set a standard corporate retainer price.
The API returned the current Attorney-at-Law Act, Law ID 001708 and MST 228089. Article 28-2 requires annual reporting of the number and amount of accepted matters to the local bar association. That reporting rule is not an advisory fee table. Article 31 restricts representation in specified conflict situations. A low quote therefore does not replace conflict clearance, engagement acceptance, confidentiality review, or assignment of suitable counsel.
The current Value-Added Tax Act, Law ID 001571 and MST 276117, took effect January 2, 2026 for the relevant articles. Article 11 treats the provision of services as a supply of services. Article 30 sets the VAT rate at 10%. Article 31 addresses collection of VAT on the supply amount, and Article 32 requires a tax invoice for taxable supply to identify the supply amount and VAT. The calculator adds 10% only when the user marks the lawyer-fee inputs as VAT-exclusive supply prices. It does not decide input-tax credit, deductibility, corporate income-tax effects, or an exceptional tax treatment.
Article 1 of the Rules on Inclusion of Attorney Fees in Litigation Costs, Law ID 005866 and MST 225413, states that the rules determine the attorney-fee amount included in litigation costs under Civil Procedure Act Article 109(1). They do not set monthly or per-matter prices for ordinary corporate contracts, employment, privacy, governance, or compliance advice. The calculator therefore never imports that litigation-cost table as a market or statutory advisory fee.
When the result sits near a break-even point, vary matter volume by at least 20%, change the out-of-scope budget, and test urgency and internal-time assumptions. A small cost difference means service and risk-control terms should carry more weight than the point estimate.
No. A high overage fee or a large excluded-work budget can make the retainer curve cross the per-matter curve again. Review every returned matter-volume threshold and the cheaper option on each side.
Create one internal definition that applies to both quotes. A contract draft plus agreed revision rounds may form one matter, while short questions can be grouped or weighted. Run separate calculations when complexity makes one average misleading.
Enter both lawyer-fee sets as VAT-inclusive amounts and turn the 10% VAT option off. If both are supply-price quotes, enter the supply amounts and turn VAT on. External expenses are entered as cash amounts and receive no second VAT addition.
Include them only when the engagement agreement clearly includes that work on the same pricing basis. Litigation, investigations, arbitration, M&A, and major diligence often require separate engagement terms, so use the out-of-scope field or a separate scenario when appropriate.
No. Those rules define the attorney-fee amount included in civil litigation costs. They are not a price schedule for ongoing corporate advice. Use the actual engagement quote and scope schedule.
No. Cost is one dimension. Compare assigned counsel, expertise, response time, backup, conflicts, confidentiality, data handling, and exit support. Those factors can dominate when the economic costs are close.
The primary texts and current-history status were checked through the Korean National Law Information Center OPEN API on July 31, 2026. Future changes to the cited mandate rules, attorney engagement restrictions, VAT rate, tax-invoice rules, or litigation-cost rule require coordinated review of the requirements, constants, tests, and both language guides.
Align the matter unit, horizon, scope, and VAT basis before reading the result. Then run conservative, base, and high-demand scenarios to see whether the engagement remains economical when assumptions change.