[2] In a case where the litigation costs are divided into the part of the co-litigants and the part between the other party and the remaining co-litigants, and the co-litigants of each of the relevant parts are assessed against each party, the method of calculating the attorney's fees to be paid to the other

[2] Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that in the case of a co-litigation, the co-litigants may bear litigation costs in a different way according to the circumstances while the court declares the principle that the co-litigants shall bear equally the litigation costs. Thus, in the text of the judgment, if the co-litigants did not simply provide that the litigation costs shall be borne by the co-litigants, and if the co-litigants determined that the lawsuit costs incurred between the part among the co-litigants and the other party and the part incurred between the co-litigants and the other party, each co-litigants bears the burden of each of the relevant portions, the attorney’s fees to be paid to the other party shall be determined in a way that the co-litigants are divided equally among the co-litigants of the relevant portions by the ratio of the amount calculated by adding up the value of the subject-matter of the lawsuit of the whole co-litigants among the amounts

According to the records, even though the above respondent was served with the original judgment on March 20, 2013, it is clear that the reappeal was filed on March 28, 2013, which was later after the re-appeal period. Thus, the reappeal of this case by the above respondent is unlawful.

2. The grounds of re-appeal are examined as to the remainder of the respondent 2, respondent 5, respondent 6, respondent 19, respondent 21, and respondent 26.

In a case where several co-litigants appoint a different attorney-at-law and had him/her institute a lawsuit, and the judgment that the other party bears the litigation costs is pronounced, the attorney’s fees to be paid to some of the co-litigants are the total amount calculated in accordance with the rules on the inclusion of litigation costs in the attorney’s fees in accordance with the value of the subject matter of lawsuit with respect to the relevant party. The attorney’s fees are equally divided among the co-litigants or are not divided in proportion to the value of the subject matter of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Order 2012Ma445, Jul. 26, 2012)

Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the co-litigants may bear litigation costs in the case of a co-litigation, but the court in the proviso thereof may require the co-litigants to bear them by a different method depending on circumstances. Thus, in a case where the court of the judgment did not simply designate litigation costs as co-litigants, but determined that the co-litigants bear the litigation costs by dividing them into the part generated between a part of the co-litigants and the other party and the part generated between the other party and the other party, each of the co-litigants bears the burden of each of the relevant parts, the attorney’s fees to be paid to the other party shall be determined in a way that the co-litigants are divided equally among the co-litigants, in accordance with the rules on the inclusion of litigation costs in the total attorney’s fees, based on the amount calculated by the ratio of the sum of the values of the

According to the records, the respondent becomes the plaintiff and six others as the plaintiff and filed a lawsuit for damages with the Gwangju District Court 2009Gahap2212. On October 5, 2010, the above court dismissed all the part of the Respondent's claims against the plaintiff and five others, and the part arising between the Respondent 1, Respondent 5, Respondent 6 (hereinafter "Respondent 1, etc.") and the Respondent and the Claimant and the Respondent 6 others are borne by the Respondent. ② The remaining Respondent except the Respondent 1, etc. and the Respondent and the Respondent 5 others are borne by the Respondent 1, etc.; the Respondent appealed appealed with the Gwangju High Court 2010Na5914, but the above court dismissed all appeals by the Respondent and the appellate court on July 1, 2011, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the Respondent including the costs of the lawsuit added in the appellate court, but all the Respondent's appeals are determined by the Supreme Court 1, 20151, 21614.61.

In light of the above facts and the legal principles as seen earlier, the respondent’s fees to be paid to the applicant in relation to the appeal on the merits of the lawsuit shall be equally borne by the respondent, based on the value of the subject-matter of the lawsuit as to the applicant. The Respondent’s fees to be paid to the applicant in the same manner as the Respondent’s fees to be paid to the applicant in relation to the appeal on the merits of the lawsuit are also determined in the same manner. Therefore, the court below’s application of such method is justifiable in determining the burden of the attorney’s fees to the appellate court

However, with respect to the first instance court of this case, the attorney fees to be paid by the respondent to the applicant shall be divided between the respondent 1 and the applicant in a final and conclusive judgment, and as long as the part arising between the respondent 1 and the other respondent excluding the respondent 1 shall be borne by the other respondent excluding the respondent 1, etc., the attorney fees shall be calculated in accordance with the rules on the inclusion of the attorney fees in the litigation costs on the basis of the Respondent's total amount of the litigation costs against the applicant excluding the respondent 1, etc., and the amount of the attorney fees shall be calculated in the proportion of the sum of the Respondent's total litigation costs from the sum of the value of the Respondent's whole litigation object to the sum of the Respondent's total litigation object and the value of the whole litigation object of the Respondent, the amount divided in proportion to the Respondent 1, etc. shall be divided among the Respondent 1, etc., and the remainder of the Respondent shall be divided among the Respondent 1, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Meanwhile, among attorney fees appointed by the appellate court, the value of the subject-matter of lawsuit, which is the basis for calculating the amount to be included in the litigation costs, is the value of the subject-matter of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Order 2000Ma4624, Sept. 3, 2001) within the scope of dissatisfaction by an appeal (see Supreme Court Order 200Ma4624, Sept. 3, 2001). After remanding the subject-matter of lawsuit, the lower court shall accurately calculate the value of the subject-matter of lawsuit

3. Therefore, Respondent 2, Respondent 5, Respondent 6, Respondent 19, Respondent 21, and Respondent 26 shall be dismissed, respectively. Of the judgment of the court below, the remainder of Respondent 2, Respondent 5, Respondent 6, Respondent 19, Respondent 21, and Respondent 26 shall be reversed and remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Re-Appellants: omitted

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)