The appellant asserted that the decision of the first instance court that calculated the total amount of litigation costs by aggregating the total amount of litigation costs of the co-litigants according to the purport of the above decision that cannot be applied to this case, and then divided the amount of litigation costs according to the value of each party is unlawful, because each of the co-litigants was appointed separately and the litigation was conducted for convenience and became co-litigants in the same litigation in the decision of the Supreme Court of the first instance on the ground of the first instance. Thus, in principle, the amount of litigation costs should be separately calculated according to the value of each party's lawsuit, according to the difference in the case where the co-litigants were appointed by the same attorney and the litigation was conducted.

2. Determination

A. In a case where several co-litigants jointly appoint an attorney-at-law and let him/her file a lawsuit (e.g., the co-litigants’ fees are related to the co-litigants to the extent that they do not actually have a separate lawsuit or a quasi-litigation), barring special circumstances, if the co-litigants include the attorney-at-law fees paid or to be paid by them in the litigation costs, the attorney-at-law fees under Article 3 of the Rules on Attorney Fees shall be calculated for each co-litigants by determining the value of the subject matter of lawsuit by each co-litigants, and shall be calculated by applying the ratio under Article 3 above, based on the total sum of the value of each subject matter of lawsuit of the co-litigants who appointed the same attorney-at-law, based on the total sum of the value of each subject matter of lawsuit among the co-litigants who have appointed the same attorney-at-law (see Supreme Court Order 200Ma563, Nov. 30, 200).

B. There are special circumstances where the appellant’s co-litigation in this case is not relevant to co-litigants to the extent that it is substantially different from an independent lawsuit, and only in the form of co-litigations. However, it is difficult to view that special circumstances existed solely on the ground that the appellant appointed an attorney-at-law in each separate lawsuit and was conducting co-litigation upon a convenient decision after being tried. Rather, the case for the claim for the return of lease deposit against the appellant 1.0 is based on the premise of the case for the claim for the cancellation of the fraudulent act against the appellant 2.0, the appellant’s claim for the return of lease deposit against the appellant 2.0, which is the right to be compensated for the revocation of the fraudulent act against the appellant 2.0, and it is difficult for all the appellant to recognize the winning fact, and it is difficult to view that the extent of the appellant’s efforts required for each attorney-at-law to act on behalf of each appellant is the substantial independence of each lawsuit.

C. Therefore, the appellant’s co-litigation cannot be deemed as having any special circumstance mentioned in the above Supreme Court’s decision. If co-litigants appoint the same attorney-at-law, it is reasonable to calculate the attorney’s fees and determine the amount of litigation costs based on the aggregate of the amounts of each co-litigants’ respective subject matter of lawsuit in accordance with the purport of the above decision

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of the first instance court is just, and the appellant's immediate appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)