[2] The meaning of "judge" under Article 4 (5), (6) 3, and 5, etc. of the Rules on Judicial Assistants concerning cases of final determination of the amount of litigation costs (=the court of first instance)

[3] The case holding that a disposition by a judicial assistant officer against a request for confirmation of the amount of litigation costs in a civil agreement case is an violation of exclusive jurisdiction where a single judge, other than a collegiate panel, has been authorized

[2] The determination of determination of the amount of litigation costs under Article 110(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is made by the first instance court. It is reasonable to see that, in light of the nature of the determination of the amount of litigation costs, the court of the lawsuit falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of the lawsuit, the provisions concerning exclusive jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Act cannot be deemed to have been amended by the rules of judicial assistant rules, and that the "judge" under the rules of judicial assistant rules does not always mean only a single judge. As to the case of determination of the amount of litigation costs, the "judge" under Article 4(5), (6) 3, and 5, etc. of the Rules of Judicial Assistant Officers is deemed to refer to

[3] The case holding that a single judge's disposition against a petition for confirmation of the amount of litigation costs regarding a civil agreement case rendered by a collegiate panel of a district court is an exclusive violation of the exclusive jurisdiction where a single judge, other than the collegiate panel of a district court, which is the court of the lawsuit

In case where several co-litigants jointly appoint an attorney-at-law and let him file a lawsuit, the amount of attorney's fees to be included in the litigation costs shall be calculated by applying the ratio under Article 3 of the former Rules on the Calculation of Litigation Costs (amended by Supreme Court Rules No. 2116 of Nov. 28, 2007; hereinafter "former Rules") based on the total sum of all the costs of each lawsuit by the co-litigants who appointed the same attorney-at-law as the litigation costs (see Supreme Court en banc Order 2000Ma563 of Nov. 30, 200). However, unlike this, in multiple lawsuits conducted separately, if the parties separately appoint an attorney-at-law as the attorney-at-law and later become co-litigants by the court's consolidated argument, even if the appointed person is the same person, it shall be reasonable to add them after calculating the amount of attorney's fees under Article 3 of the former Rules according to the amount of each lawsuit.

According to the records, the other party brought a lawsuit against the re-appellant 1 for the claim of damages due to delay in the return of lease deposit (the Busan District Court 2005Gahap12738), and apart from this, brought a lawsuit for the claim of revocation of fraudulent act against the re-appellant 2 for the claim of revocation of the above damage claim (the Busan District Court 2005Gahap16464), and the re-appellant appointed the legal representative as the legal representative and brought a lawsuit for revocation of the above damage claim (the Busan District Court 2005Gahap164). While the lawsuit is pending on the merits, the two main cases are joined by the court's decision and the subsequent co-litigation did not exist, the court of the first instance against the re-appellant 1, which dismissed all the claims against the re-appellant 1, and the judgment was finalized around that time, the amount of attorney's fees to be included in the litigation expenses should be added to the attorney's fees according to Article 3 of the former Rules according to the legal principles as mentioned above.

Nevertheless, the court below maintained the decision of the court of first instance (which seems to have an error of calculation in the decision of the court of first instance) that calculated the attorney's fees by applying the ratio under Article 3 of the former Rules based on the total sum of the value of each subject matter of lawsuit of the re-appellants. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the inclusion of the attorney's fees in litigation costs, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for reappeal pointing

2. The decision shall be made ex officio;

Article 110(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002 and enforced from July 1, 2002) provides that "in case where the amount of the litigation costs is not determined in a judgment that sets the burden of the litigation costs, the first instance court shall determine the amount of the litigation costs by decision at the request of the parties after the judgment becomes final or after the judgment on the burden of the litigation costs has been executed, or after the judgment on the burden of the litigation costs has been executed." Thus, "the first instance court" in the above period refers to the court of the lawsuit, which belongs to an exclusive jurisdiction, due to its nature as

Meanwhile, Article 54 of the Court Organization Act which was amended by Act No. 7402 on March 24, 2005 and enforced on July 1, 2005 may have judicial assistant officers to the Supreme Court and the courts of each level (Paragraph 1); Article 54 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the duties prescribed by the Supreme Court Regulations among the duties of the court in the final procedure of litigation costs under the Civil Procedure Act may be performed by judicial assistant officers (Paragraph 2); Article 3 of the Supreme Court Regulations provides that a judge may file an objection against the disposition of the judicial assistant officers as prescribed by the Supreme Court Regulations (Paragraph 4 of this case); Article 110 through 115 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that an objection against the judicial assistant officer shall be filed on June 3, 2005 by the Supreme Court Regulations and enacted on July 1, 2005 (Article 110 through 1115 of the same Act; Article 4 of the same Act provides that an objection against the judicial assistant officer may be filed as one of the judicial assistant officers in the final procedure (Article 4 of this case).

However, as seen earlier, the determination of the amount of litigation costs under Article 110(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is made by the first instance court, which is in its nature belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of the lawsuit, and the provisions on exclusive jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Act cannot be deemed to have been amended by the rules on judicial assistant officers, and as known in Article 4(1) of the Rules on Judicial Assistant Officers, it is reasonable to deem that the “judge” under Article 4(5), (6)3, and (5) of the Rules on Judicial Assistant Officers, etc., refers to the “court of the first instance” in relation to the case of the determination of the amount of litigation costs, in consideration of the fact that the “judge” under the above rules does not always mean a single judge.

According to the records, it can be known that the decision to determine the amount of litigation costs of this case is related to the case on the merits which was decided by the Busan District Court Panel Division as the court of lawsuit. Accordingly, in accordance with the above legal principles, the decision whether to approve the disposition of the judicial assistant on the claim to determine the amount of litigation costs of this case should have been made by the Busan District Court Panel Division

Nevertheless, the court below held that it is reasonable for Busan District Court single judge, who is not the court of the principal case, to authorize the disposition of the judicial assistant to determine the amount of litigation costs, and thus dismissed the appeal by the re-appellant. The order of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of exclusive jurisdiction. In this regard, the court below's order cannot be maintained.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed, and the decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the case shall be transferred to the Busan District Court Panel Division, which is the competent court of first instance, for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)