[2] In case where a co-litigant has lost at the same ratio as a co-litigant in an ordinary co-litigation, whether it is necessary for the court to have the co-litigants bear litigation costs by other means by actively applying the proviso of Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, if the co-litigants are contrary to equity or unreasonable

[2] In the determination procedure of the amount of litigation costs, the scope of the obligation to reimburse the costs of lawsuit cannot be deliberated, determined or altered, and the scope of the obligation to reimburse the costs of lawsuit cannot be deliberated, determined or altered. Therefore, in order to prevent the occurrence of unreasonable results and to make the judgment of the cost of lawsuit that corresponds to equity and concrete feasibility among the co-litigants, in ordinary co-litigations where the co-litigants have jointly lost at the same ratio, it is more desirable for the co-litigants to jointly bear the costs of lawsuit in the way of determining the costs of lawsuit by actively applying the proviso of Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, if it is contrary to equity or unreasonable to actively bear the costs of lawsuit due to the reason that there is a significant difference in the value of the object of lawsuit between the co-litigants or the content and nature of the subject matter of lawsuit

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 severally charge the costs of lawsuit to the co-litigants or may charge them by any other means, depending on the circumstances.” Thus, if the court order set the ratio of the costs of lawsuit by co-litigants, or provided that “the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the co-litigants,” without ordering the co-litigants to jointly or severally bear the costs of lawsuit, the co-litigants shall bear equally the costs of lawsuit to the other party, and even if there is any internal problem between the co-litigants, it shall be resolved by agreement among them and by substantive law (see Supreme Court Order 201Ma1774, Oct. 16,

In light of the records, in the case of this case where the respondent establishes the amount of litigation costs to be reimbursed to the applicant according to the judgment of the court of first, second and third instances that the respondent et al. and ten or the respondent bear the costs of lawsuit after filing a lawsuit, the judgment of the court below that the respondent has to equally determine the amount of litigation costs to be reimbursed to the applicant according to the judgment of the court of first, second and third instances that the respondent bears the costs of lawsuit, even if the value of the purpose of the lawsuit differs, the amount of litigation costs to be reimbursed to the applicant by the respondent is justifiable as it is in accordance with the above legal principles, and there

2. As to the litigation cost-bearing trial practice in ordinary co-litigation

(a) In an ordinary co-litigation, one point shall be pointed out as to the litigation cost-bearing trial practice in case where the co-litigants lose together at the same ratio; and

B. In a case of a co-litigation, Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The co-litigants shall bear the costs of lawsuit equally: Provided, That the court may, depending on circumstances, jointly or severally bear the costs of lawsuit.” At present, a majority of the co-litigants in an ordinary co-litigation rendered a judgment on the cost of lawsuit to ensure that the co-litigants jointly bear the costs of lawsuit by applying the main text of Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, if the co-litigants lose the same proportion as the co-litigants in an ordinary co-litigation, and the same applies to the principal lawsuit of this case. However, in an ordinary co-litigation, it may be deemed that the co-litigants jointly bear the costs of lawsuit is contrary to equity or unreasonable due to the reason that there is a significant difference in the value of the subject matter of lawsuit among the co-litigants, or the content or nature of the subject matter of lawsuit, and the extent of a defense dispute, etc.,

C. The case is examined in the case where the co-litigants, such as the case where Byung became the plaintiff and Eul won won, and the case where there is a substantial difference in the value of the object of the lawsuit among co-litigants, such as the case where Eul won and Eul won won are won by filing a loan claim lawsuit with the co-defendant.

(1) In the above case, the majority of the business practices currently apply the main text of Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, without distinguishing the litigation relations by the defendant, and instead rendering a judgment on the cost of lawsuit that “the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.” However, in applying the proviso of Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court may, depending on circumstances, have the co-litigants bear the costs of lawsuit in a different way. As such, in the above case, the court may render a judgment on the cost of lawsuit that “the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant Gap out of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant Gap, and the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant Eul out of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant

(2) Although a court in charge of a lawsuit may choose one of the methods examined in the above case at the time of a judgment on the cost of lawsuit, there is a substantial difference in the amount of litigation cost to be borne by A and B depending on which method is selected. However, in the case of ordinary co-litigation under Article 66 of the Civil Procedure Act, unless there are special circumstances in accordance with the principle of the independence of co-litigants, matters concerning one of the co-litigants are not affected by other co-litigants, and each co-litigants is in the status of a party only in one of the co-litigants and the other party is established separately from each of the co-litigants in the above case, and when a judgment on the cost of lawsuit is rendered by applying the main text of Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act automatically in the above case, it would result in an unreasonable consequence that Eul, as a co-litigants, was affected by his litigation cost by a sudden reason that Eul filed a lawsuit with Eul as a co-defendant with Eul as a co-defendant, and in reality, it would result in an additional burden even the litigation cost to be borne by Gap.

D. In determining the amount of litigation costs, it is only possible to determine the amount of litigation costs to be repaid, and the scope of the obligation to reimburse determined by the judgment on the burden of litigation costs cannot be deliberated, determined, or altered. Therefore, in order to prevent the occurrence of unreasonable outcomes and to make the judgment on the burden of litigation costs consistent with equity and concrete feasibility among the co-litigants, in the ordinary co-litigants lose together in the same proportion, if the co-litigants lose together in the ordinary co-litigants, it is more desirable to judge the burden of litigation costs by way of determining the burden of litigation costs by actively applying the proviso of Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, if it is contrary to equity or unreasonable for the co-litigants to jointly bear litigation costs due to the reason that there is a significant difference in the value of the object of lawsuit between them, or the content and nature of the subject matter of lawsuit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)