[1] Where a person liable to bear expenses succeeds to another person after a judgment on the burden of litigation costs is rendered, whether such successor shall be granted an execution clause to apply for the determination of the amount of litigation costs (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that in a case where a person liable to bear litigation costs did not obtain an succeeded execution clause and filed an application for confirmation of the amount of litigation costs against his heir after a judgment on the costs of lawsuit was rendered, such application is unlawful as it was filed against a person who is not a party

[1] Where a person liable to bear costs succeeds to the case after a judgment on the costs of lawsuit is rendered, an succeeding execution clause shall be granted in order to apply for the determination of the amount of the costs of lawsuit against the successor.

[2] The case holding that in a case where a person liable to bear litigation costs failed to obtain an succeeded execution clause and filed an application for confirmation of the amount of litigation costs against his heir after a judgment on the costs of lawsuit was rendered, such application is unlawful as it was filed against a person who is not a party to

[1] Article 110 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 31 of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Article 110 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 31 of the Civil Execution Act

Federation of Korea Passenger Transport Business Association

Respondent

Gwangju High Court Order 2008Ra89 dated May 7, 2009

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Where a person liable to bear costs succeeds to another person after a judgment on the costs of lawsuit is rendered, an execution clause for succession shall be granted to such successor in order to apply for the determination of the amount of costs of lawsuit.

According to the records, the non-party 1 filed a lawsuit against the applicant, non-party 2 limited partnership and non-party 3 as Gwangju District Court Order 2001Da56428, Nov. 19, 2003, which ruled against the applicant and non-party 2 limited partnership company (hereinafter "applicant, etc.") that part of the judgment against the non-party 3 was won, and the appeal against the non-party 3 was dismissed. The appellate court accepted the appeal against the applicant, etc. on Apr. 16, 2004 as Seoul High Court Order 2003Na8984, and ordered the payment of additional money to the applicant, etc. and dismissed the remaining appeal against the non-party 3, and the judgment of the first instance court and the appellate court decision were dismissed by the non-party 1 as the plaintiff's heir's appeal against the non-party 204Da23745, and the costs of the lawsuit against the non-party 10% judgment and the 10% judgment were finalized between the plaintiff 16.

Nevertheless, the order of the court below that rendered a determination of the amount of litigation costs without the succeeding execution clause against the re-appellant (designated party) and the designated party who is not the party to the judgment of the costs of lawsuit is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the procedure for filing a claim for determination of the amount of litigation costs in case of succession by the person liable for

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of reappeal, 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 Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)