[재산관계명시][공1995.6.1.(993),1929]
Whether a creditor who has received a decision to determine the amount of litigation costs may make an application for specification of property relations under Article 524-2 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
In the procedure of determining the amount of litigation costs, the scope of the obligation to repay the costs of lawsuit itself cannot be deliberated, determined, or altered. Thus, the portion of the obligation to repay the costs of lawsuit prescribed in the final and conclusive judgment under Article 524-2(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the protocol under Article 206, the order for payment decided, or the civil conciliation protocol, etc., which can apply for specification of property relations, is the title of the obligation to bear the costs of lawsuit. The final and conclusive decision on the amount of litigation costs is to only determine the amount for enforcement of the right to claim reimbursement of the costs of lawsuit finalized by the title of the said obligation, etc., and it is merely an incidental judgment supplementing such determination on the premise of the title of the said obligation. Thus, the obligee who has received the determination on the amount of litigation costs of this case can, as a matter of course
Article 524-2 of the Civil Procedure Act
Appellant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant-appellee and 1 other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellee
Seoul Central District Court Order 94Ra1006 Dated October 7, 1994
The order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of reappeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, in this case where the re-appellant files an application to specify the amount of litigation costs in the name of debt, the court below rejected the re-appellant's application on the ground that the Re-Appellant's failure to comply with the final judgment under Article 524-2(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the protocol under Article 206, the payment order or the civil conciliation protocol is listed in the name of debt that can apply for specification of the property relationship (Article 524-8 of the same Act) and the jurisdiction of the application to specify property relations is limited to the court of the first instance, the court of the lawsuit, the court of the payment order, or the court that made the payment order (Article 524-2(3) of the same Act) and the judgment against which only the appeal can be filed is presumed not to be included in the name of debt that can apply for specification of the amount of litigation costs (Article 100(1) and (3) of the same Act), and ultimately, the final decision on the amount of litigation costs is not included in the name of debt.
However, in the procedure of determining the amount of litigation costs, the scope of the obligation to repay the costs of lawsuit itself cannot be deliberated, determined, or altered. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Order 86Ma55, Mar. 8, 1986; Supreme Court Order 91Ma277, Sept. 24, 1991; Supreme Court Order 91Ma277, Sept. 24, 1991; Supreme Court Order 524-2(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which allows a request for specification of property relationship, is the final and conclusive portion of the cost of lawsuit determined in the final and conclusive judgment under Article 524-2(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the final and conclusive payment order, and the final and conclusive payment order, or civil conciliation protocol, are only an incidental judgment supplementing only the amount of the cost of lawsuit for the execution of the right to reimburse the costs of lawsuit established by the name of the above obligation. Therefore, the creditor who received the determination of the amount of litigation costs of lawsuit can file an application for specification of property relationship under Article 524(1).
Nevertheless, the order of the court below that judged differently solely on the ground that the decision on the amount of litigation costs can be appealed by an appeal is an error of law by misapprehending the nature of the decision on the amount of litigation costs and the legal principles as to the disclosure of property relations. Therefore, there is a ground
Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices
Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)