1. As to the first ground for reappeal of the applicant

In a case where several co-litigants jointly appoint an attorney-at-law and let them file a lawsuit, barring special circumstances (e.g., the co-litigants’ fees paid or to be paid by such co-litigants are rarely related to, but in form, co-litigants to the extent that such co-litigation is substantially unrelated to, an independent lawsuit) shall be calculated by applying the ratio under Article 3 of the Rules on the Inclusion of Costs of Litigation by determining the value of the subject matter of lawsuit by each co-litigants for each co-litigants and calculating the attorney’s fees according to Article 3 of the Rules on the Inclusion of Costs of Litigation (hereinafter “Rules”), instead of adding up, the fees for attorneys shall be calculated by applying the ratio under Article 3 based on the total sum of values of the subject matter of lawsuit by all co-litigants who appointed the same attorney-at-law (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Ma5563, Nov. 30, 200

However, when a lawsuit was filed against a specific person by one or more different persons, the specific person appointed an identical attorney for each lawsuit and had him/her conduct the lawsuit later. If such multiple lawsuits were joined into one co-litigation by the court’s ruling of pleading consolidation, the amount of attorney’s fees to be included in the litigation costs should be calculated based on the value of the object of each lawsuit before the consolidation, unless there are special circumstances, in calculating the attorney’s fees to be borne by the other party co-litigants among the attorney’s fees paid by the specific person in question as the litigation costs.

However, according to the reasoning of the order of the court below and the records, when a lawsuit for damages was filed against the applicant, etc. by one or more respondent, Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap22759, 2009Gahap2666, 2009Gahap2666, and 2009Gahap45226, respectively, the applicant appointed a law firm plaza as a legal representative and had the legal representative conduct the lawsuit. The three lawsuits are separate, and the arguments were joined into one lawsuit and proceeded with the principal lawsuit of this case. The above court dismissed all the claims against the respondent against the respondent on February 15, 2013, and determined that the respondent and the applicant bear the burden of the respondent. The part of the petitioner in the above judgment becomes final and conclusive on March 14, 2013.

If the facts are the same, the amount of attorney’s fees to be included in the litigation costs of the instant lawsuit shall be calculated based on the value of the subject matter of each lawsuit before consolidation in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, and shall be calculated by adding up the amounts of attorney’s fees under Article 3 of the Rule.

Nevertheless, the court below affirmed the decision of the court of first instance that calculated the amount of attorney fees by applying the ratio under Article 3 of the Rules based on the value of the entire subject matter of litigation in the case of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of attorney fees in the combined co-litigation, which affected the conclusion of the decision.

2. As to the grounds of reappeal No. 2 of the applicant and the grounds of reappeal No. 2 of the respondent, the distribution of Jeju Livestock Products Co., Ltd., U.S., SP distribution and respondent 14

Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The co-litigants shall bear the costs of lawsuit equally: Provided, That the court may jointly or separately charge the costs of lawsuit to the co-litigants depending on circumstances.” Thus, in the text of the judgment, if the court determines the ratio of the costs of lawsuit by co-litigants, or provided that the costs of lawsuit merely are to be borne by the co-litigants without ordering the co-litigants to jointly or severally bear the costs, the co-litigants shall bear equally the costs of lawsuit to the other party, and even if there are internal problems between the co-litigants, they shall be resolved by agreement among them and by substantive law (see Supreme Court Order 2001Ma1774, Oct. 16, 2001

In light of the above legal principles and records, even if the value of the subject-matter of the lawsuit in this case differs by the respondent, the court below is just in deciding that the respondent shall equally bear the total amount of the litigation costs that the respondent has to pay to the applicant, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 102 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)